[Talk-GB] Useful or superfluous adding unmarked tactile crossings at junctions?

[Edward Catmur]

Another common feature (particularly in Lambeth) is a raised roadbed. I
would map that as traffic_calming=table kerb=flush, plus island, tactile
and marking as appropriate.

Agreed that crossings should be mapped if there is any infrastructure
present, and also where footways intersect roadways without infrastructure
(which may mean some "=no" tagging).

On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 10:31 AM Stephen Colebourne <scolebourne at joda.org>
wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 at 10:17, Mat Attlee <mattattlee at gmail.com> wrote:
> > In the area I am currently surveying I've noticed many unmarked tactile
> crossings at junctions that aren't mapped but I am wondering are they
> useful to map or superfluous? Is it implied that a junction has a crossing?
> Should I save my time and only add unmarked crossings between junctions?
>
> I always try and add a node for crossings with these five elements:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6936050174
> (obviously the kerb, tactile and island vary as necessary)
>
> The aim is to help pedestrian routing, so I'd always have sidewalk
> info (either style) as well. Given this is the aim, it is very
> occasionally necessary to add a crossing node where there are no
> dropped kerbs or other signs of an actual crossing, but my view is
> that it is better to have the information of a "bad" crossing than no
> info at all (most people can step down a kerb, and the data provides
> the info necessary for those that can't)..
>
> Stephen
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20210218/991a0d23/attachment.htm>