[OSM-talk] Pedestrian crossings and barriers
gravitystorm at gmail.com
Wed Aug 1 22:30:26 BST 2007
On 8/1/07, 80n <80n80n at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/1/07, Andy Allan <gravitystorm at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 8/1/07, Alex Mauer <hawke at hawkesnest.net> wrote:
> > > Peter Miller wrote:
> > > > crossing=footbridge
> > > > crossing=foottunnel
> > > > crossing=cyclebridge
> > > > crossing=cycletunnel
> > >
> > > These make some sense, but don't we already have tags that cover all
> > > these use cases? I don't even know that we need to tag them as
> > > crossings, since they shouldn't even have nodes at the "intersection"
> > > since the roads don't intersect.
> > Since we don't mark in pavements (sidewalks), I've found some crossing
> > hard to mark. It's all right to mark in a footbridge (as a footway on
> > layer=1, with steps) - but when there's no pavements, what do we
> > connect the paths to? A simple tag on a node helps do things like this
> > quickly, and that's better than it not being marked at all.
> +1, except that the editors (JOSM and Potlatch) need to show a visible
> difference between nodes with and without tags. It's all to easy to remove
> seemingly redundant nodes from ways without realising that they contain
> important tags.
Yes, absolutely. I'm not developing either of those though, hopefully
someone else can help out!
More information about the talk