[Tagging] Use of crossing:island where crossings and islands are mapped separately

[Robert Skedgell]

The same user whose edits gave rise to the post below appears to have 
decided to "standardise" crossing tagging on crossings in Newham, most 
of which I have surveyed and mapped, with the following innovations:

1) tactile_paving=yes on crossing ways, although none of the ways have 
tactile paving along their entire length. This may be a result of 
copying all the tags from the crossing node to the way, but could be 
unhelpful for any data consumers which expect tactile_paving=* to work 
as documented.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tactile_paving#Use_on_ways

2) removing crossing=no from highway=traffic_signals nodes where there 
is either no crossing or a crossing which is mapped as a separate node. 
It's not a necessary tag, but it's been used as documented in the 'How 
to map' section of the wiki. I've added a sentence to the wiki for 
crossing=no referring to highway=traffic_signals
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtraffic_signals#How_to_map_(new)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:crossing&diff=prev&oldid=2421754

3) replacing traffic_signals=traffic_lights with the less-specific 
traffic_signals=signal and traffic_signals=pedestrian_crossing with the 
undocumented traffic_signals=crossing
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_signals

I'm happy for my edits to be corrected when I make mistakes or misread 
the wiki, which I'm sure happens more often than I imagine. However, 
it's rather annoying to lose data to what appears to be an undiscussed 
and potentially misguided personal project.

On 27/09/2022 07:42, Robert Skedgell wrote:
> Where there is a crossing with traffic islands, but the highways forming 
> the crossings and crossing the islands are mapped separately, my 
> assumption has been that crossing:island=no is the correct tagging.
> 
> If a visually impaired user is being told to expect additional islands 
> or refuges where none exist, this does not strike me as particularly safe.
> 
> This wiki appears to agree with this:
> "Do not tag a crossing with crossing:island=yes if the crossing is 
> explicitly mapped as multiple separate crossings; i.e., where the 
> traffic island is not part of the footway=crossing way. This is common 
> with larger intersections with wide traffic islands where the traffic 
> lane in each direction is mapped separately. For clarity, the stretches 
> of highway=footway that form part of the traffic island can be tagged 
> with footway=traffic_island. Additionally, the footway=crossing sections 
> can optionally be tagged with crossing:island=no. This may be useful in 
> case you are performing a survey of all crossings in an area and wish to 
> explicitly mark these as having separate (or no) refuge islands."
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing:island
> 
> I haven't used footway|cycleway=traffic_island on the ways crossing the 
> islands, possibly because JOSM and/or Osmose (incorrectly?) complain. 
> Perhaps I should?
>