Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions
That is an interesting case! Looking at mapillary, it looks like part of it is paved. I'm not sure whether that makes it a footway or not, but it looks incredibly dangerous to cross there: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=53.91808029997222=-1.164232900018=17.363583160262273=photo=Bn5q8Eay8Sar3ELAEaHXFg=0.5127641245746908=0.55074602568446=0 This is a case where I feel my own subjectivity comes into play when it comes to mapping: do I map a potentially unsafe crossing (sometimes the only one available for miles) and hope that data consumers contextualize it properly (a multi-part unmarked crossing on a primary highway) or do I dictate crossing=no / add notes? I don't feel confident in either option, personally, and actually tend to just not map it and hope for the best. On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 2:31 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 20:58, Andy Townsend wrote: > >> >> Adding ways where people might think there ought to be ways (but there >> aren't really) is certainly established. As an example, >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/691036735 is one that I did >> yesterday. Historically I suspect that there was a legal right of way >> across here (and there might still be, although there is nothing >> signed), and there is gap in the barrier that appears to have been >> created to allow crossing, but I wouldn't try it unless you fancy >> playing "human frogger". >> > > Nice one Andy! > > Just wondering if that would be better as a description, or both note & > description? > > Thanks > > Graeme > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions
On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 20:58, Andy Townsend wrote: > > Adding ways where people might think there ought to be ways (but there > aren't really) is certainly established. As an example, > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/691036735 is one that I did > yesterday. Historically I suspect that there was a legal right of way > across here (and there might still be, although there is nothing > signed), and there is gap in the barrier that appears to have been > created to allow crossing, but I wouldn't try it unless you fancy > playing "human frogger". > Nice one Andy! Just wondering if that would be better as a description, or both note & description? Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions
On 20/05/2019 06:20, Nick Bolten wrote: > if you are having trouble where people are “fixing” your mapping, then draw a way with no highway=* tag put crossing=no on it. Is this an established strategy? I'd be happy to promote it + update the wiki if it's communally supported. If it's not necessarily an established strategy, I'd also be interested in making a new thread about it in the hopes of making it one. Adding ways where people might think there ought to be ways (but there aren't really) is certainly established. As an example, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/691036735 is one that I did yesterday. Historically I suspect that there was a legal right of way across here (and there might still be, although there is nothing signed), and there is gap in the barrier that appears to have been created to allow crossing, but I wouldn't try it unless you fancy playing "human frogger". Best Regards, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions
> I’ve read that whole previous discussion, and from my point of view it was just a whole bunch of completely useless noise, with everyone telling you that you aren’t making sense and you ignoring it and bulldozing your way forward. Ah, and incidentally, I'd say I have the exact opposite problem: I reply to just about every single thread, quoting just about everything and attempting to take it into consideration. Let's try to make this a productive discussion, not one laden with (for some reason primarily German-speaking-originating) disdain. On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 10:20 PM Nick Bolten wrote: > > if you are having trouble where people are “fixing” your mapping, then > draw a way with no highway=* tag put crossing=no on it. > > Is this an established strategy? I'd be happy to promote it + update the > wiki if it's communally supported. If it's not necessarily an established > strategy, I'd also be interested in making a new thread about it in the > hopes of making it one. > > On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 10:09 PM John Willis via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> On May 20, 2019, at 9:52 AM, Nick Bolten wrote: >> >> Unfortunately, people will draw the crossing if there isn't negative >> information there saying to stop doing that, e.g. crossing=no >> >> >> if you are having trouble where people are “fixing” your mapping, then >> draw a way with no highway=* tag >> >> put crossing=no on it. that should at least read as “mapped” to imagery >> tracers out there. >> >> similar to demolished=* on a line mapped over a bridge visible on imagery >> that has actually been destroyed. >> >> Javbw >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions
> I’ve read that whole previous discussion, and from my point of view it was just a whole bunch of completely useless noise, with everyone telling you that you aren’t making sense and you ignoring it and bulldozing your way forward. Well, so much for community discussion. I will make appeals to those interested in hearing other points of view. On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 10:09 PM wrote: > I’ve read that whole previous discussion, and from my point of view it was > just a whole bunch of completely useless noise, with everyone telling you > that you aren’t making sense and you ignoring it and bulldozing your way > forward. > > > > *From:* Nick Bolten > *Sent:* Monday, 20 May 2019 10:48 > *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related > questions > > > > It's a little disappointing to see these points rehashed given the lengthy > recent discussions, but at the risk of creating a new massive thread I'd > like to clear some things up. > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions
> if you are having trouble where people are “fixing” your mapping, then draw a way with no highway=* tag put crossing=no on it. Is this an established strategy? I'd be happy to promote it + update the wiki if it's communally supported. If it's not necessarily an established strategy, I'd also be interested in making a new thread about it in the hopes of making it one. On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 10:09 PM John Willis via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > > On May 20, 2019, at 9:52 AM, Nick Bolten wrote: > > Unfortunately, people will draw the crossing if there isn't negative > information there saying to stop doing that, e.g. crossing=no > > > if you are having trouble where people are “fixing” your mapping, then > draw a way with no highway=* tag > > put crossing=no on it. that should at least read as “mapped” to imagery > tracers out there. > > similar to demolished=* on a line mapped over a bridge visible on imagery > that has actually been destroyed. > > Javbw > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions
I’ve read that whole previous discussion, and from my point of view it was just a whole bunch of completely useless noise, with everyone telling you that you aren’t making sense and you ignoring it and bulldozing your way forward. From: Nick Bolten Sent: Monday, 20 May 2019 10:48 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions It's a little disappointing to see these points rehashed given the lengthy recent discussions, but at the risk of creating a new massive thread I'd like to clear some things up. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions
Hey Markus,
This is a very good example that I somehow forgot to add to any of my
replies / the wiki. Thank you for reminding me!
There are certainly many crossings that have pedestrian signals but are
tagged with the flavor du jour of crossing=marked because the latter can be
mapped from aerial imagery and the former has to be verified on the ground.
On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 10:55 AM Markus wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2019 at 18:32, wrote:
> >
> > Personally, I can not remember having ever seen, in my whole life, a
> signal controlled pedestrian crossing that does not have road markings,
> excluding cases where there are temporarily no road markings at all because
> they haven't been painted yet after the road has just been laid down or
> resurfaced.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > crossing=uncontrolled and crossing=zebra have been used a combined 1.25
> million times. In practical usage, they mean exactly the same thing, and
> they have widespread software support already. Trying to replace them with
> a 3rd value that still means exactly the same things is a classical case of
> https://xkcd.com/927/
>
> While it may be true that there aren't any signal controlled
> pedestrian crossing without road markings, the problem with
> zebra/marked using the same key as traffic_signals is that mappers
> (those that don't visit the place, don't have local knowledge and
> likely haven't read the documentation) see a marked crossing on the
> aerial imagery and tag it crossing=zebra/marked even if there are
> traffic lights -- sometimes they even retag a crossing=traffic_signals
> to crossing=zebra/marked. I've already corrected dozens of them, but
> there are constantly new ones being wrongly added or retagged. While
> crossing=unmarked/{uncontrolled|zebra|marked}/traffic_signals
> theoretically may work, it doesn't in practice. I think that only
> moving traffic lights and road markings to separate keys will solve
> this problem.
>
> Regards
>
> Markus
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions
> if you do not draw the ways for people to cross, then they don’t exist, right? Unfortunately, people will draw the crossing if there isn't negative information there saying to stop doing that, e.g. crossing=no. I'd add crossing=no to that particular place in addition to your recommendations. This is a bit like the situation where mappers add buildings that don't exist from aerial imagery and diligent local mappers have to keep deleting them / adding notes / using a tagging scheme just to say, "this doesn't exist". If that crossing location is illegal, which I would hope it is simply due to being so dangerous, even more reason to add crossing=no. On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 5:02 PM John Willis via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > On May 20, 2019, at 6:57 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick > wrote: > > Draw the fence > > > > Draw the fence. > > access=no > > > if you do not draw the ways for people to cross, then they don’t exist, > right? > > where people have made narrow footpaths (without breaking barriers, such > as paths over a hill between two formal ways), then highway=path > surface=ground informal=yes is how I tag those, though this might not be > correct. > > But in this instance, you are talking about a barrier being ignored and > jumped. simply do not map the crossings. > > javbw. > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions
ewalk on one side of the road stops > here, or some other indication that this is a commonly used crossing point. > > uncontrolled/zebra/marked - there are road markings, but no signals that > control traffic flow, that make it clear to both road and pedestrian > traffic that this is a designated crossing point > > traffic_signals - there are traffic signals here that control traffic > flow, it is extremely likely that there are also road markings, but their > presence or absence is irrelevant as it would not change how the crossing > operates > > I think you'll find that any proposal that tries to completely throw over > this well-established tagging scheme is doomed to failure. > > > -Original Message- > > From: Markus > > Sent: Monday, 20 May 2019 00:37 > > To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools > > > > Subject: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related > > questions > > > > Hi Nick, hi everyone, > > > > I welcome these proposals (crossing=marked, crossing:signals=* and > > footway=island) [1] to bring order to the pedestrian crossing > > tagging. > > Thank you, Nick, for your efforts so far! > > > > I have two questions, not about the proposals themselves, but about > > pedestrian crossing tagging in general: > > > > * When the crossing type is tagged on the way (e.g. > > highway=footway > > + footway=crossing + crossing=marked + crossing:signals=yes), should > > the crossing type also be tagged (duplicated) on the crossing node > > or are routers able to get that information from the crossing ways? > > > > * Should the road be split for short refuge islands into two one- > > way ways? This would result in unusual maps, especially at > > crossroads > > (example: [2]). > > > > [1]: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Unambiguous_cr > > ossings > > [2]: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Crossroads_with_traffic_isl > > ands.png > > > > Regards > > > > Markus > > > > ___ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions
sent from a phone > On 20. May 2019, at 02:00, John Willis via Tagging > wrote: > > Draw the fence. +1, I would also suggest for fences and walls to tag the height. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions
> On May 20, 2019, at 6:57 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Draw the fence Draw the fence. access=no if you do not draw the ways for people to cross, then they don’t exist, right? where people have made narrow footpaths (without breaking barriers, such as paths over a hill between two formal ways), then highway=path surface=ground informal=yes is how I tag those, though this might not be correct. But in this instance, you are talking about a barrier being ignored and jumped. simply do not map the crossings. javbw.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions
On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 02:32, wrote: Pretty well agree with everything you said, Thorsten, but I'd like to clarify one point thanks. no - there is no crossing possible/legal here > Understand the idea, but how do we actually use it? The fence here https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.0725198,153.4441123,3a,75y,182.92h,70.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spYYE39O0IZ2ymA7Jh-D-5g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 is "supposed" to stop people crossing the highway (it doesn't!) & extends for several k, broken only by cross-streets, turning lanes & pedestrian crossings. So how do we mark crossing=no along this entire stretch? Draw the fence in & add a crossing tag to that? Would anything / anyone read it? Crossing=no added to the road itself? Same thing applies. Any other thoughts? (Or is there an obvious, simple solution that I'm missing :-)) Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions
sent from a phone > On 19. May 2019, at 18:30, > wrote: > > "The "traffic_signals" namespace is used to describe both vehicular traffic > signals and pedestrian/bicycle traffic signals, to everyone's confusion." > > This statement is simply completely factually wrong. > > a) traffic_signals is the *value* here, not the name of the tag > > b) there are 2 distinct tags to describe the presence of traffic signals for > the road way and foot/cycle way: > > highway=traffic_signals for signals controlling traffic on the road > crossing=traffic_signals for signals controlling crossing pedestrians > > "To make matters worse, it forces mappers to choose between tagging a > crossing's markings, [...], or whether it has signalization." > > Personally, I can not remember having ever seen, in my whole life, a signal > controlled pedestrian crossing that does not have road markings, excluding > cases where there are temporarily no road markings at all because they > haven't been painted yet after the road has just been laid down or resurfaced. > > And even if there should really be signal controlled crossings that on > purpose do not have any road markings, I would consider that to be basically > completely irrelevant. The presence of signals that control traffic and > pedestrian movement supersedes the meaning any road markings might have. If a > signal controlled crossing has road markings or not does not in any way > change its operation. > > Deprecating a tag that has been used almost 60 times and has widespread > software support, just to replace it with a different tag that means exactly > the same seems somewhat insane to me, and while I can't speak for anyone > else, I can guarantee to always vote no for this. > > "Replacing crossing=island" > > I can agree with this one, but it's essentially a non-issue as this has > already been done. At most the wiki might need slight editing to make it more > clear that the use of crossing=island has been deprecated. > > "Replacing crossing=uncontrolled and crossing=zebra with crossing=marked" > > crossing=uncontrolled and crossing=zebra have been used a combined 1.25 > million times. In practical usage, they mean exactly the same thing, and they > have widespread software support already. Trying to replace them with a 3rd > value that still means exactly the same things is a classical case of > https://xkcd.com/927/ > > Looking at taginfo, there are already 168281 cases of crossing=marked right > now, so the unfortunate reality is that we already have the case of 3 > different values meaning the same thing and no matter how much you try to > dictate the usage of a particular one by fiddling with the wiki, it's > unlikely that there will ever be a day when all 3 aren't in widespread use > synonymously. > > As such the best that can be done is to slightly adjust the wiki to document > the reality that all 3 values are used synonymously. > > All this basically leaves the crossing key with the following possible values: > > no - there is no crossing possible/legal here > > unmarked - there are no road markings or traffic signals here, but this is a > place where people are generally (legally) cross the road, e.g. because of > lowered kerbs, or because the sidewalk on one side of the road stops here, or > some other indication that this is a commonly used crossing point. > > uncontrolled/zebra/marked - there are road markings, but no signals that > control traffic flow, that make it clear to both road and pedestrian traffic > that this is a designated crossing point > > traffic_signals - there are traffic signals here that control traffic flow, > it is extremely likely that there are also road markings, but their presence > or absence is irrelevant as it would not change how the crossing operates > > I think you'll find that any proposal that tries to completely throw over > this well-established tagging scheme is doomed to failure full quote, +1 thank you for taking the time to formulate a thorough reply just one remark: crossing=zebra clearly means a zebra crossing (implications for traffic may vary according to the jurisdiction), crossing=marked means _any_ marked crossing. Both will imply (from my understanding) that there are no traffic lights (for pedestrians), but the meaning may not be identical. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions
On Sun, 19 May 2019 at 18:32, wrote:
>
> Personally, I can not remember having ever seen, in my whole life, a signal
> controlled pedestrian crossing that does not have road markings, excluding
> cases where there are temporarily no road markings at all because they
> haven't been painted yet after the road has just been laid down or resurfaced.
>
> [...]
>
> crossing=uncontrolled and crossing=zebra have been used a combined 1.25
> million times. In practical usage, they mean exactly the same thing, and they
> have widespread software support already. Trying to replace them with a 3rd
> value that still means exactly the same things is a classical case of
> https://xkcd.com/927/
While it may be true that there aren't any signal controlled
pedestrian crossing without road markings, the problem with
zebra/marked using the same key as traffic_signals is that mappers
(those that don't visit the place, don't have local knowledge and
likely haven't read the documentation) see a marked crossing on the
aerial imagery and tag it crossing=zebra/marked even if there are
traffic lights -- sometimes they even retag a crossing=traffic_signals
to crossing=zebra/marked. I've already corrected dozens of them, but
there are constantly new ones being wrongly added or retagged. While
crossing=unmarked/{uncontrolled|zebra|marked}/traffic_signals
theoretically may work, it doesn't in practice. I think that only
moving traffic lights and road markings to separate keys will solve
this problem.
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions
"The "traffic_signals" namespace is used to describe both vehicular traffic signals and pedestrian/bicycle traffic signals, to everyone's confusion." This statement is simply completely factually wrong. a) traffic_signals is the *value* here, not the name of the tag b) there are 2 distinct tags to describe the presence of traffic signals for the road way and foot/cycle way: highway=traffic_signals for signals controlling traffic on the road crossing=traffic_signals for signals controlling crossing pedestrians "To make matters worse, it forces mappers to choose between tagging a crossing's markings, [...], or whether it has signalization." Personally, I can not remember having ever seen, in my whole life, a signal controlled pedestrian crossing that does not have road markings, excluding cases where there are temporarily no road markings at all because they haven't been painted yet after the road has just been laid down or resurfaced. And even if there should really be signal controlled crossings that on purpose do not have any road markings, I would consider that to be basically completely irrelevant. The presence of signals that control traffic and pedestrian movement supersedes the meaning any road markings might have. If a signal controlled crossing has road markings or not does not in any way change its operation. Deprecating a tag that has been used almost 60 times and has widespread software support, just to replace it with a different tag that means exactly the same seems somewhat insane to me, and while I can't speak for anyone else, I can guarantee to always vote no for this. "Replacing crossing=island" I can agree with this one, but it's essentially a non-issue as this has already been done. At most the wiki might need slight editing to make it more clear that the use of crossing=island has been deprecated. "Replacing crossing=uncontrolled and crossing=zebra with crossing=marked" crossing=uncontrolled and crossing=zebra have been used a combined 1.25 million times. In practical usage, they mean exactly the same thing, and they have widespread software support already. Trying to replace them with a 3rd value that still means exactly the same things is a classical case of https://xkcd.com/927/ Looking at taginfo, there are already 168281 cases of crossing=marked right now, so the unfortunate reality is that we already have the case of 3 different values meaning the same thing and no matter how much you try to dictate the usage of a particular one by fiddling with the wiki, it's unlikely that there will ever be a day when all 3 aren't in widespread use synonymously. As such the best that can be done is to slightly adjust the wiki to document the reality that all 3 values are used synonymously. All this basically leaves the crossing key with the following possible values: no - there is no crossing possible/legal here unmarked - there are no road markings or traffic signals here, but this is a place where people are generally (legally) cross the road, e.g. because of lowered kerbs, or because the sidewalk on one side of the road stops here, or some other indication that this is a commonly used crossing point. uncontrolled/zebra/marked - there are road markings, but no signals that control traffic flow, that make it clear to both road and pedestrian traffic that this is a designated crossing point traffic_signals - there are traffic signals here that control traffic flow, it is extremely likely that there are also road markings, but their presence or absence is irrelevant as it would not change how the crossing operates I think you'll find that any proposal that tries to completely throw over this well-established tagging scheme is doomed to failure. > -Original Message- > From: Markus > Sent: Monday, 20 May 2019 00:37 > To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools > > Subject: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related > questions > > Hi Nick, hi everyone, > > I welcome these proposals (crossing=marked, crossing:signals=* and > footway=island) [1] to bring order to the pedestrian crossing > tagging. > Thank you, Nick, for your efforts so far! > > I have two questions, not about the proposals themselves, but about > pedestrian crossing tagging in general: > > * When the crossing type is tagged on the way (e.g. > highway=footway > + footway=crossing + crossing=marked + crossing:signals=yes), should > the crossing type also be tagged (duplicated) on the crossing node > or are routers able to get that information from the crossing ways? > > * Should the road be split for short refuge islands into two one- > way ways? This would result in unusual maps, especially at > crossroads > (example: [2]). > > [1]: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pro
[Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions
Hi Nick, hi everyone, I welcome these proposals (crossing=marked, crossing:signals=* and footway=island) [1] to bring order to the pedestrian crossing tagging. Thank you, Nick, for your efforts so far! I have two questions, not about the proposals themselves, but about pedestrian crossing tagging in general: * When the crossing type is tagged on the way (e.g. highway=footway + footway=crossing + crossing=marked + crossing:signals=yes), should the crossing type also be tagged (duplicated) on the crossing node or are routers able to get that information from the crossing ways? * Should the road be split for short refuge islands into two one-way ways? This would result in unusual maps, especially at crossroads (example: [2]). [1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Unambiguous_crossings [2]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Crossroads_with_traffic_islands.png Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
