[Tagging] RFC: pedestrian crossing as an area

[Mateusz Konieczny]

To be clear - I am not really planning to make a vote (partially because it is quite 
experimental and I am not 100% sure that it is a good idea).

I agree that such mapping makes sense only in few places.

> My gut reaction is that pedestrian crossings can be adequately modeled 
> as a center line and width (similar to roads with width and/or lane tagging).

I also considered this. The problems are:

- centerline of footway is not necessarily center of crossing area,
sometimes crossing area is significantly offset
- there is good way to handle cases of multimodal crossings such as
crossing of highway=path bicycle=designated foot=designated segregated=yes
with separate spaces for cycleway and footway crossing

Jan 13, 2022, 18:01 by zelonewolf at gmail.com:

> My gut reaction is that pedestrian crossings can be adequately modeled as a center line and width (similar to roads with width and/or lane tagging).  While mappers are free to innovate and come up with new ways to map in increasingly greater detail and specificity, I think that the "approved" tag that ends up on the wiki after an approved proposal sends a specific signal to mappers.  And that signal is not just "this is the community recommendation on how to tag X" but also, and the point I want to express here, that "feature X should be mapped".
>
> I feel that a pedestrian crossing areas (in US English I'd describe this as "the area of a crosswalk") fits into a category that's increasingly described as "nano mapping".  I seem to recall somebody proposed to tag the area of individual road markings - the dashes and arrows and so forth painted on the road, and I see this as a similar "nano" feature.  I'm confident that there are plenty of other things left to map in the world before we need people individually tracing painted road markings just to keep busy, so there should be no rush to apply that green "Approved" label.
>
> Until there is some reasonable critical mass in terms of data consumer support and feature proliferation in the map, I think we should avoid approving tagging schemes for nano-mapping, and instead allow such mapping to continue growing organically in order to learn what innovations result from it.  The use of nano-mapped features is still in its infancy, and I suspect it would be a mistake to approve tagging for it until we're able to fully embrace how these features fit into the big picture and how the data consumer needs stack up against them.
>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 11:46 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> tagging at openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>> Comments are welcome on
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/pedestrian_crossing_as_an_area
>>
>> It is about a tagging for mapping of crossings in extreme detail.
>>
>> Feedback is welcomed especially as I have not noticed that there is no accepted tagging
>> scheme for such features.
>>
>> I though that there is one and I am using it, but in
>> https://github.com/matkoniecz/lunar_assembler/issues/26>>  I was made aware
>> that I was mistaken.
>>
>> Review is especially appreciated now as I am not entirely sure whether I will send
>> the proposal for voting.
>>
>> I am much more interested in arguments for/against 
>> some solutions - or even the very idea of such mapping, than in yes/no votes.
>>
>> Please do not wait with comments for a vote.
>> _______________________________________________
>>  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/20220113/a107912e/attachment-0001.htm>