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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Have you tried writing to them using changeset comment?


Oct 17, 2022, 20:17 by rob at hubris.org.uk:

> 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?
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20221018/677a9068/attachment.htm>