[OSM-talk] highway=crossing tags removed in changeset.
dr.kludge.gm at gmail.com
Sat Jul 16 06:20:17 UTC 2016
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Alejandro S. <alejandroscf at gmail.com> wrote:
> Looks like somebody making automated edits without checking by survey what
> they are doing...
> I think it should be reverted.
> Kind regards,
> Alejandro Suárez
Did you even read the change history of any nodes such as node
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/729984457/history or consult the
tagging page on the subject before you making the allegation that this
was an automated edit?
"crossing=no Where definitely no crossing is possible/legal. This tag
must be used without a highway=crossing, so data consumers only
evaluating the high-level highway tag are not mislead into assuming a
As crossing=no excludes the existence of a crossing, the combination
of highway=crossing and crossing=no is invalid.
Thus, if there is a place where one would expect a crossing but where
is definitely no crossing, you may tag this with crossing=no but
It is obvious from the history and experience with Josm's noisy
validator that his is not an automated edit. Wynndale was merely map
gardening. The obvious change for this node is highway=crossing and
crossing=unmarked. I say that because of the two lane looking cycle
way that crosses the road. crossing=no may have been UniEagle's
attempt at crossing=unmarked.
1.) Edit 1 5/11/2010 NaN135709 adds the node at the crossing.
2.) Edits 2 to 5 from 6/29/2011 to 4/22/2014 all have the missing
3.) Finally on edit 6 on 4/22/14 roughly four hours after edit 5
UniEagle adds highway=crossing and crossing=no. And when we look at
the wiki diff history, we can defend UniEagle's decision because there
wasn't much information at the time.
4.) Edit 7, the edit under dispute, Wynndale removes the
highway=crossing tag following the first sentence of the wiki page and
the rest of the paragraph.
The better option follows on the next sentence of wiki:
"crossing=unmarked A crossing without road markings or traffic lights"
So how about coaching the mapper verses reverting the changeset or
making an allegation. Even the original tagging is wrong. Why would
you want to revert a change that is right based on the wiki to
something that is wrong to begin with? How about clarifying the wiki
page before accusing someone of an automated edit? How about let's
congratulate Wynndale on a brave attempt at map gardening in such a
More information about the talk