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

[Robert Skedgell]

On 18/02/2021 10:30, Stephen Colebourne 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

For some of the "bad" crossings ( crossing=unmarked + tactile_paving=no
+ kerb=raised|yes ), I wonder if adding informal=yes to the crossing
node and connecting footway (if present) might be worth considering?

Around East Village and Chobham Manor (the former London 2012 Olympic
Village), all "planned" crossings have tactile paving and lowered or
flush kerbs. This "crossing" over the end of Honour Lea Avenue is used
by large numbers of people instead of he scenic route via other marked
and unmarked crossings.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2998078255
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/k_IhcBd46OgdkqqaEVPBmA