[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing:markings

[Alexander Kane]

I had a very similar idea: something like crossing:diff_pavement=yes/no. Of
course then you have to define: different paving for whom?

As on crossing=unmarked this image
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:crossing%3Dunmarked#/media/File%3A51_Edgewater_Boulevard_(36709048234).jpg
was given as an example of a difficult case. If this is considered a
crossing, I don't think anyone would call the continuation of the sidewalk
a "marking" in any case, but maybe someone will surprise me. But in any
case, the driver crossing the sidewalk can clearly see that they are
crossing it, even though there are no proper markings. I have seen
driveways crossing sidewalks with actual markings however.

I think  a decent metric is whether the crossing marking matches the other
road markings. A road could have concrete surface in one direction, and
asphalt in the other (not unheard-of), but this doesn't make it
lane_markings=yes in any case.

Yves via Tagging <tagging at openstreetmap.org> schrieb am So., 7. Aug. 2022,
11:48:

>
>
> Le 7 août 2022 07:46:04 GMT+02:00, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging at openstreetmap.org> a écrit :
> >
> >Giving crossing:markings=no to
> >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Azalea_City_Trail,_Alden_Ave_crosswalk_across_Williams_St.JPG
> >seems really weird and WILL confuse people.
> >
>
> distinct_pavement as a value ? Given that the user can also choose among
> the various surface tags, invent a refined value, or choose 'no' if
> inclined to.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220807/ca39bf61/attachment-0001.htm>