[Tagging] ****SPAM:6.1**** Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Crossing cleanup and deprecation

[Robert Skedgell]

On 29/11/2022 10:01, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Vào lúc 23:01 2022-11-28, Martin Koppenhoefer đã viết:
>>> On 29 Nov 2022, at 00:52, Minh Nguyen <minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Even if it weren't for iD's long-gone preset, I don't think an 
>>> ostensibly global tag should be defined based on the narrow 
>>> provisions of a specific country's laws.
>>
>>
>> I don’t think this is about a specific country, although it is not 
>> about all countries there are many of them that apply the concept and 
>> that seem to have decided on the feature in 1949 in an international 
>> agreement.
> 
> No zebras were harmed in the drafting of either the 1949 Geneva Protocol 
> on Road Signs and Signals [1] or the 1978 Vienna Convention on Road 
> Signs and Signals [2]. Neither treaty mentions this species by name, but 
> the national laws of some parties to the Vienna Convention do define 
> zebra crossings.
> 
> For example, the UK requires zebra crossings to have alternating stripes 
> as well as belisha beacons. [3] Other countries, such as Vietnam, use 
> the term "zebra" specifically for the striped marking pattern 
> (crossing:markings=zebra), by contrast with two parallel lines 
> (crossing:markings=lines), but make no other provisions apart from what 
> any crossing would have. [4] Meanwhile, here in the U.S., which is not a 
> party to the convention, we walk on a distinct species of "zebra 
> crossing" that has slanted stripes. What was the problem with 
> crossing_ref=zebra again?

To add to the fun, zebra crossings in the UK do not require Belisha 
beacons or a controlled area with zigzag lines when placed across a 
cycle track. A give way marking of a single row of dashes is always 
required. This is very common at "floating" bus stops in London.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14/made

> What you seem to be suggesting is that the definition of crossing=zebra 
> should favor the regulations of some parties to the Vienna Convention 
> over other parties to the convention, let alone other countries that use 
> the term "zebra" to refer to something slightly different. This is 
> unsustainable. At one point, it might've been reasonable to justify the 
> use of one national definition as a historical accident, based on 
> squatter's rights. But since then, for better or worse, that definition 
> has been overwhelmed by usage that we can't characterize as cleanly.

Perhaps crossing_ref=* should have a country prefix, to remove any 
possible ambiguity between GB:zebra, NL:zebra, or an equestrian crossing 
with priority for the subgenus Hippotigris? :-)

> Mappers benefit when they can be confident that others will look at 
> their tagging later on and interpret it consistent with their original 
> intention. Someone using crossing=zebra today shouldn't be under any 
> illusion that it means anything more specific than a marked crossing in 
> practice. In that light, crossing=zebra deserves to be given the same 
> deference as crossing=marked.
> 
> [1] 
> <https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1953/12/19531220%2000-10%20AM/Ch_XI_B_1_2_3.pdf>
> [2] https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/conventn/signalse.pdf#page=7
> [3] 
> <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/851465/dft-traffic-signs-manual-chapter-6.pdf#page=127>
> [4] 
> <https://luatvietnam.vn/giao-thong/quy-chuan-ky-thuat-qcvn-41-2019-bgtvt-bao-hieu-duong-bo-186000-d3.html>, p. 20; search for "vạch ngựa vằn", literally "zebra stripes"
>