[Tagging] What qualifies as crossing=unmarked

Jeroen Hoek mail at jeroenhoek.nl
Sun Oct 10 13:07:50 UTC 2021



On 10-10-2021 14:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> 
> Am So., 10. Okt. 2021 um 13:52 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> <tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:tagging at openstreetmap.org>>:
> 
>     And I am likely influenced by legal situation in Poland which is quite
>     pedestrian-hostile (though it gets better year by year)
> 
>     For example pedestrian crossings on a crossing of roads
>     have special legal status (you can cross there), even if not marked
>     at all in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> the same in Germany, in proximity of road crossings, turning cars must
> give way to crossing pedestrians, even if a pedestrian crossing is not
> marked.

As in the Netherlands.

Because these type of crossings simply connect the sidewalks (when
mapped) in a near straight line, it makes sense to consider them here too.


So we have, crossings that lack road markings:

* but have a clear indication of being a very suitable place to cross
due to hints in the street design, such as lowered kerbs or
non-accidental gaps in any barrier separating the sidewalk from the street;

* where the sidewalk physically continues (using the same or similar
paving) across the street uninterrupted (interrupting the street instead);

* and lack any other type of hint of being one, but which are the
natural continuation of a sidewalk running alongside a road;

* but which are mapped to ensure the road network remains connected (the
mapper chooses a suitable place to cross)


(All of the above assumes that all crossing with road markings or
traffic lights fall under crossing=uncontrolled/traffic_signals, and of
course that the sidewalks leading up or along them are mapped.)

Any other types?

Should all of these be considered some form of crossing=unmarked, or are
other crossing=* categories needed?


Is a sub-type (like crossing_ref) for crossing=unmarked perhaps
warranted to help mappers and tools like StreetComplete mark them
properly (for the benefit of other mappers as well as enriching map
data) and to give routers something to use in their computation? (I.e.,
routers can then slightly penalize less 'friendly' crossings, or
something like that.)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211010/7a06bb01/attachment.sig>


More information about the Tagging mailing list