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

Robert Skedgell rob at hubris.org.uk
Tue Sep 27 06:42:48 UTC 2022


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?

-- 
Robert Skedgell (rskedgell)



More information about the Tagging mailing list