Re: [Tagging] RFC: crossing=* (was: highway=speed_camera equivalent for non-speed enforcement types)
On 2014-07-22 11:01, Jo wrote : FYI it doesn't seem likely that the event of dropping highway=bus_stop or highway=speed_camera will be dropped in a foreseeable future, meaning you'll have to keep double tagging everything. In Belgium all red light cameras do double duty as speed cameras, so I didn't have this particular problem. Are you sure yours aren't speed cameras as well? Jo 2014-07-22 10:38 GMT+02:00 Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de mailto:andi...@t-online.de: I hesitate to just invent a new highway=*_camera tag, beause I don't actually like it to be under the highway key (something accepted for the speed_camera probably only of historical reasons) You could see how big the support in the community is replace highway=speed_camera key with a man_made=* As this is about they key you could always tag both and rounters etc. could adopt and support both and at some distant point in the future the highway key might be dropped. That's kinda what's happening to public_transport where the new system is adopted more and more, but highway=bus_stop stop is still used. _ I have mentioned without much follow-up a similar issue with highway=crossing + crossing=*. What OSM calls crossing, zebra stripes, is in fact a passage pour piétons which does not necessarily cross. In Belgium (too), we have quite a number of passages pour piétons painted longitudinally and it makes sense. Children's safety, for example, is just as important if they have to walk alongside on the road. Or it may be painted across a parking lot, in which case mapping highway=crossing ways make sense. crossing=* alone (which, as a highway=* tag implicitly means highway:crossing) is sufficient. So, I am proposing: * to allow crossing=* on any highway=* when the painting is longitudinal * crossing:right=yes, crossing:left=yes in that case * highway=crossing for a way painted across an area André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: crossing=* (was: highway=speed_camera equivalent for non-speed enforcement types)
2014-07-22 10:43 GMT+01:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com: On 2014-07-22 11:01, Jo wrote : I have mentioned without much follow-up a similar issue with highway=crossing + crossing=*. What OSM calls crossing, zebra stripes, is in fact a passage pour piétons which does not necessarily cross. Why do you believe that OSM crossing refers not to a place where highways may be crossed, but to any demarcated pedestrian area on a highway? In british english it's very clear that a crossing is where people cross. If passage pour piétons refers to a more general category, then you need to be careful not to confuse the categories. The wiki says (but not at the top) This tag is for the node at the intersection of highways and footways. That matches my understanding of it. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcrossing In Belgium (too), we have quite a number of passages pour piétons painted longitudinally and it makes sense. Children's safety, for example, is just as important if they have to walk alongside on the road. Or it may be painted across a parking lot, in which case mapping highway=crossing ways make sense. crossing=* alone (which, as a highway=* tag implicitly means highway:crossing) is sufficient. So, I am proposing: to allow crossing=* on any highway=* when the painting is longitudinal crossing:right=yes, crossing:left=yes in that case highway=crossing for a way painted across an area If crossing were to be used for places where you cannot cross, this would confuse many people. I'd suggest you need to use a different tag. Best Dan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: crossing=* (was: highway=speed_camera equivalent for non-speed enforcement types)
I have tagged, occasionally, longitudinal zebra markings as designated foot-way, which seems to me better than crossing on ways. Volker Italy On 22 July 2014 12:00, Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-07-22 10:43 GMT+01:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com: On 2014-07-22 11:01, Jo wrote : I have mentioned without much follow-up a similar issue with highway=crossing + crossing=*. What OSM calls crossing, zebra stripes, is in fact a passage pour piétons which does not necessarily cross. Why do you believe that OSM crossing refers not to a place where highways may be crossed, but to any demarcated pedestrian area on a highway? In british english it's very clear that a crossing is where people cross. If passage pour piétons refers to a more general category, then you need to be careful not to confuse the categories. The wiki says (but not at the top) This tag is for the node at the intersection of highways and footways. That matches my understanding of it. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcrossing In Belgium (too), we have quite a number of passages pour piétons painted longitudinally and it makes sense. Children's safety, for example, is just as important if they have to walk alongside on the road. Or it may be painted across a parking lot, in which case mapping highway=crossing ways make sense. crossing=* alone (which, as a highway=* tag implicitly means highway:crossing) is sufficient. So, I am proposing: to allow crossing=* on any highway=* when the painting is longitudinal crossing:right=yes, crossing:left=yes in that case highway=crossing for a way painted across an area If crossing were to be used for places where you cannot cross, this would confuse many people. I'd suggest you need to use a different tag. Best Dan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
