[Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 9/17/20 08:15, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> It's also atrocious because it can *only* be verified by survey. As
> much as we prefer surveys, the reality is that a lot of mapping
> happens just from aerials, where crossings (both marked and, in some
> cases, unmarked) can be seen, but signals cannot.

I have mapped many traffic signals (and, for that matter, stop and yield
signs) based on shadows visible on the satellite photos. If you look
carefully enough (Bing and Mapbox Satellite at least), they are there.
(Local knowledge helps too in some cases.)

> As someone who's generated a fair number of "uncontrolled" crossings
> because that was the only "blessed" tag, I would much prefer
> separating the presence or absence of features that can be verified
> in an aerial (marked, unmarked, striped, island, ...) from whether or
> not signals are present.

I agree that the current presets available in JOSM are a bit of a botch,
particularly "uncontrolled" for crossings technically controlled by a
sign. "Marked" may be better but we still have the issue of changing a
lot of previously tagged crossings. I think "island" is already covered
by traffic_calming=island, no?

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn at rushpost.com>
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com