[Tagging] What qualifies as crossing=unmarked

[Jez Nicholson]

Personally, and influenced by UK law that you may cross the road [almost]
anywhere you like, I believe case 1 is the only unmarked crossing here. An
unmarked crossing is a planners way to increase safety by influencing
behaviour. A straight section of inner city pavement has lowered kerb to
encourage pedestrians to cross at that point (plus make it accessible).

Where I live, all corners are being lowered to make them more accessible.
That doesn't make every corner in town a pedestrian crossing. It's totally
normal for people to cross there, they haven't been specifically encouraged
to go there.

On Sat, 9 Oct 2021, 20:56 Jeroen Hoek, <mail at jeroenhoek.nl> wrote:

> Cases 1 and 3 are what I would consider cases of crossing=unmarked.
> These are places designed as pedestrian crossing places with
> accessibility in mind. They lack road markings, but the lowered kerbs
> make it clear that this is where you would cross if you were in a
> wheelchair or pushing a pram. When sidewalks are mapped separately, this
> is where you would want to have them cross the street.
>
> Case 2, the driveway, not really. In fact, the sidewalk/pavement
> continues over the driveway, which in many jurisdictions means that
> pedestrians have right of way, and the the sidewalk is not interrupted.
> The driveway is crossing the sidewalk, not the other way around. No tag
> necessary I think when the way is a highway=service.
>
> When the way is highway=residential or higher, some tag to indicate this
> kind of 'sidewalk continues uninterrupted, street crosses it' is lacking
> I think. These are common in the Netherlands, for example:
>
> https://postimg.cc/k6HpPxHK
>
> The sidewalk (and the cycleway) continue across that side street running
> of to the top of the photograph. I wouldn't tag these with
> crossing=unmarked, but some tag for these is missing.
>
> Case 4 lacks a clear place to cross. It is up to the pedestrian
> themselves to choose where. In these cases crossing=unmarked does not
> feel appropriate. I don't know if some other crossing-tag would be
> useful for this. Personally I tag the section of highway=footway
> crossing here with footway=link (continuing with footway=sidewalk after
> leaving the carriage way) to indicate that this is a crossing mapped for
> routing purposes, but that it lacks a formal on the ground crossing
> place (for places where crossing=* is appropriate footway=crossing is
> used). Mapping the kerbs in these cases seems helpful for wheelchair
> users too.
>
> I'm basing this mainly based on this criterium from the
> crossing=unmarked documentation:
>
> > By a structural measure the transition should be recognizable.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211010/d7748d98/attachment-0001.htm>