[OSM-talk] [tagging] Crossing access types

[Andrew Chadwick (email lists)]

Steve Hill wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2008, Andrew Chadwick (email lists) wrote:
> 
>> * If two ways cross at a crossing Node, access keys would logically
>>   apply to both. Declaring that crossings are somehow special and that
>>   access tags on them apply only to the crossing traffic is worse.
> 
> Ok, sounds like we would need a relation for this so you can specify
> which way it applies to.

Sometimes you won't have a crossing Way at all. I should probably have
been clearer about that. For example the case where the crossing merely
goes from one sidewalk of a busy road to the opposite sidewalk.
Sidewalks are considered part of the Way in OSM, yet you still might
want to declare non-default crossing types. cycleway=track ->
toucan-style crossing -> cycleway=opposite_track is probably  the corner
case here.

A Relation between a) a single crossing and b) the Way(s) it crosses
might make more sense. But it might also be too fiddly to apply, and
relying on it would not be backwards-compatible.

>> * The access tag is not documented as being applicable to Nodes. Most
>>   crossings will be Nodes.
> 
> It probably should be applicable to nodes so that you can apply it to
> things like gates

I believe it's being talked abut in the Barrier proposal. Barriers/gates
don't have the complication of being more applicable to one highway
which joins another at them than the other, typically. I think that
sentence will parse.

-- 
Andrew Chadwick