[Talk-GB] traffic island mapping / harmful detail?

[Stephen Colebourne]

I add some areas in the middle of traffic, for pedestrians.

My rule is that I add them in association with explicit sidewalks, as
it makes it much easier to follow the sidewalk. The classic case is
where a pedestrian crossing is two-phase, and the pedestrian has to
walk parallel to the road, as shown here (I hope it can be seen that
the map is clearer for pedestrians with the island explicitly mapped):
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.40863/-0.21544

I wouldn't split a road to do this though - I'd be adding it in a
place where the road already justifies being split. For a small
pedestrian crossing island I feel that `crossing:island=yes` is the
best option (and I always add `crossing:island=no` too):
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7259595189

Stephen


On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 at 11:45, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
>
> Dear UK community,
>
> the DWG was made aware of a discussion between two long-standing UK
> mappers (Tallguy and JayTurnr) about traffic islands, here
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/96021663
>
> I would welcome it if this could be discussed in as larger group so that
> a consensus may be found.
>
> As an aside, I noticed that there is a "harmful edits" channel on
> Discord. It would be nice if users of that channel could apply some
> caution before branding edits as "harmful" there. Discord is a closed
> medium that requires a signup, and while I don't expect us to refrain
> from discussing the edits of a newly signed up teenager vandal because
> they are not present, I don't think it is good style to use the platform
> to bad-mouth edits of an active, and responsive, mapper who isn't even
> there to defend themselves.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb