sent from a phone
> On 22. May 2019, at 21:16, Nick Bolten wrote:
>
> Ah, I see. Would you envision the only value for crossing:markings be "no",
> or would it potentially have yes/no/{type}, where mappers use it at their
> discretion - such as in this example?
yes/no/type
preferably
> crossing=traffic_signals
> crossing:markings=no
Ah, I see. Would you envision the only value for crossing:markings be "no",
or would it potentially have yes/no/{type}, where mappers use it at their
discretion - such as in this example?
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 10:49 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
> The core of the issue seems to be that there are two conflicting
mindsets: Mapping "types" of crossings versus having a "construction kit"
of several tags which each describe one facet of the crossing.
I agree, this is the central issue behind the tags being non-orthogonal:
crossing=* implies
On 08.05.19 01:30, Nick Bolten wrote:
> Would it be fair to say you're suggesting something along the lines of
> crossing:marking=*, where * can be yes, no, or a marking type? You make
> a good point about the simplicity of avoiding a subtag for markings.
Yes, this is pretty much what I'm
On Mon, May 20, 2019, 02:53 Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> Am Mo., 20. Mai 2019 um 07:53 Uhr schrieb Nick Bolten :
>
>> Hello everyone, this is a late addition to this thread (I'll start a new
>> one soon after I improve the proposal page), but I want to give an example
>> of a crossing that
sent from a phone
> On 20. May 2019, at 17:17, Nick Bolten wrote:
>
> > I would suggest to tag the exception, i.e. the absence of crossing markings
> > where there is a pedestrian traffic light controlled crossing, with an
> > additional property for the crossing node.
>
> I'm not
> It is? I hadn't noticed.
Yes.
> I take a very different view, that crossing=traffic_signals says that the
crossing is controlled by traffic signals. There may or may not be
markings. Those markings may or may not be similar to markings at
crossings without traffic signals but, if the lights
> It is very common to see markings at traffic signal controlled crossings,
but I would not see them as a requirement, and I do not think it is written
anywhere that it should be.
I agree, and this is one of the criticisms I list for this tag. Every time
I have made this criticism - here or with
On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 06:53, Nick Bolten wrote:
>
> This is topical, as crossing=traffic_signals is often claimed to imply
> crossing=marked.
>
It is? I hadn't noticed. I take a very different view, that
crossing=traffic_signals says that
the crossing is controlled by traffic signals. There
Am Mo., 20. Mai 2019 um 07:53 Uhr schrieb Nick Bolten :
> Hello everyone, this is a late addition to this thread (I'll start a new
> one soon after I improve the proposal page), but I want to give an example
> of a crossing that has lights but no markings that is traversed by
> (guessing)
> If you scroll down a bit, you'll find a map that shows that Pine St
between 4th & 5th Ave's is a "shared street without markings":
https://www.citylab.com/solutions/2015/03/6-places-where-cars-bikes-and-pedestrians-all-share-the-road-as-equals/388351/
which I guess should possibly be tagged in
On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 15:53, Nick Bolten wrote:
> Hello everyone, this is a late addition to this thread (I'll start a new
> one soon after I improve the proposal page), but I want to give an example
> of a crossing that has lights but no markings that is traversed by
> (guessing) thousands of
Hello everyone, this is a late addition to this thread (I'll start a new
one soon after I improve the proposal page), but I want to give an example
of a crossing that has lights but no markings that is traversed by
(guessing) thousands of people per day:
On 08/05/19 19:18, marc marc wrote:
Le 08.05.19 à 10:30, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
„uncontrolled“, as it is a misnomer.
indeed, but what could be a better value ?
crossing=not_controlled_by_a_traffic_signal is a little long
I have used 'uncontrolled' where there is no marking, no aids
> Same around here. Most of them have tactile paving too.
Please join our discussion of crossing=marked!
Without wanting to invite discussion in this thread, this is not what
"uncontrolled" means in OpenStreetMap, and it's one of the reasons we
should change it.
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 4:52 AM
> Uncontrolled crossings are by far the most common. They are wherever
there are drop kerbs, which in my town just about every road junction.
Please join our discussion of crossing=marked!
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 2:42 AM Philip Barnes wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 May 2019, marc marc wrote:
> > Le
> Just because mapping something requires real survey rather than mapping
from aerial imagery is not making it fictional or unofficial.
You are correct. To clarify, my use of quotation marks is meant to
communicate that I'm not literally saying they are a fiction - just similar
to one. There is
> and we already have it : crossing_ref
I was only referencing these facts to note a synergy with another proposal.
It won't be productive to hash out the entirety of problems with
crossing=uncontrolled and the proposal to use crossing=marked in this
thread, so I'll ask that we have in-depth
> ground marking but not traffic signal
I listed three discrete categories being covered in the current schema:
on-the-ground markings, signals for pedestrians, and signals for
cross-traffic. There is some further confusion regarding the word
"uncontrolled" having to do with right-of-way, but
sent from a phone
On 8. May 2019, at 11:18, marc marc wrote:
>> Le 08.05.19 à 10:30, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
>> „uncontrolled“, as it is a misnomer.
>
> indeed, but what could be a better value ?
> crossing=not_controlled_by_a_traffic_signal is a little long
I’m using crossing=zebra
sent from a phone
On 8. May 2019, at 11:15, marc marc wrote:
>> Unmarked crossings are abstract "fictions"
>
> beware of caricature :
> - unmarked pedestrian crossings with lowered kerb for wheelchairs
> - unmarked pedestrian crossing that connects a sidewalk on each side of
> the crossing
Le 08.05.19 à 15:09, Paul Allen a écrit :
> On Wed, 8 May 2019 at 13:44, marc marc wrote:
>
> Le 08.05.19 à 13:51, Paul Allen a écrit :
> > pelican crossings <...> didn't render (no traffic lights shown)
>
> you get it with crossing=traffic_lights crossing_ref=pelican
>
> I had
On Wed, 8 May 2019 at 13:44, marc marc wrote:
> Le 08.05.19 à 13:51, Paul Allen a écrit :
> > pelican crossings
> > it didn't render (no traffic lights shown)
>
> you get it with crossing=traffic_lights crossing_ref=pelican
>
I had those, together with a few other things. At the time I did it,
Le 08.05.19 à 13:51, Paul Allen a écrit :
> pelican crossings
> it didn't render (no traffic lights shown)
you get it with crossing=traffic_lights crossing_ref=pelican
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
On Wed, 8 May 2019 at 10:42, Philip Barnes wrote:
>
> Uncontrolled crossings are by far the most common. They are wherever there
> are drop kerbs, which in my town just about every road junction.
>
Same around here. Most of them have tactile paving too. Which I suppose
could be considered as
In the United States an unmarked crosswalk is usually legally identical to
a crosswalk marked with painted stripes. Vehicle drivers and bike riders
must stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk whether there is paint or not. In
general, all places where there is a sidewalk on both sides of an
On Wednesday, 8 May 2019, marc marc wrote:
> Le 08.05.19 à 01:30, Nick Bolten a écrit :
> > Unmarked crossings are abstract "fictions"
>
> beware of caricature :
> - unmarked pedestrian crossings with lowered kerb for wheelchairs
> - unmarked pedestrian crossing that connects a sidewalk on each
8 May 2019, 01:30 by nbol...@gmail.com:
> - Unmarked crossings are abstract "fictions" representing where an individual
> might cross the street, marked crossings are identifiable from imagery.
> - Because unmarked crossings are "fictions", they are only suggested places
> to cross, according
Le 08.05.19 à 10:30, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
> „uncontrolled“, as it is a misnomer.
indeed, but what could be a better value ?
crossing=not_controlled_by_a_traffic_signal is a little long
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
Le 08.05.19 à 01:30, Nick Bolten a écrit :
> Unmarked crossings are abstract "fictions"
beware of caricature :
- unmarked pedestrian crossings with lowered kerb for wheelchairs
- unmarked pedestrian crossing that connects a sidewalk on each side of
the crossing
just because you've never seen
Le 08.05.19 à 00:06, Tobias Knerr a écrit :
> We need a tag for the_type_ of the markings anyway
> (as different patterns for marked crossings can have
> entirely different legal meanings in some jurisdictions), and we can use
> that same tag for presence/absence by also allowing yes/no values.
Le 07.05.19 à 23:08, Nick Bolten a écrit :
> What do crossing=uncontrolled/unmarked/traffic_signals say about these
> scenarios?
> crossing=uncontrolled:
ground marking but not traffic signal
> - signalization for pedestrians is undefined
sorry I didn't understand what you mean.
crossing
sent from a phone
> On 8. May 2019, at 00:54, Nick Bolten wrote:
>
> This proposal does not deprecate crossing=uncontrolled.
>
> For the latter: why not? The tag is, in technical terms, garbage, and other
> tags in relatively high use have been deprecated before.
I would support the
On 07/05/2019 22:46, Volker Schmidt wrote:
Two spontanous reactions
1) You cannot deprecate a tagging that is used 750k times
(crossing=uncontrolled) or 570k times (crossing=traffic_signals)
In principle, why do you think it can't be performed?
> However, it seems odd to "demote" traffic signals to a sub-tag when their
presence or absence is perhaps the biggest influence on the crossing's
overall character.
I agree that it's not ideal to have to make these kinds of choices about
"demoting". In case it's helpful, this is my original
> 1) You cannot deprecate a tagging that is used 750k times
(crossing=uncontrolled) or 570k times (crossing=traffic_signals)
This proposal does not deprecate crossing=uncontrolled.
For the latter: why not? The tag is, in technical terms, garbage, and other
tags in relatively high use have been
On 07.05.19 23:08, Nick Bolten wrote:
> This proposal suggests the deprecation of crossing=traffic_signals and
> replacing it with crossing:signals=yes, i.e. placing pedestrian
> signalization on a dedicated tag that is separate from crossing=* values.
I agree with separating orthogonal
Two spontanous reactions
1) You cannot deprecate a tagging that is used 750k times
(crossing=uncontrolled) or 570k times (crossing=traffic_signals)
2) please define the terms you use.
What is "signalization"?
I know these terms: traffic signals, road marking (=horizontal traffic
signs), signs
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crossing:signals
Hello fellow tagging enthusiasts!
This proposal suggests the deprecation of crossing=traffic_signals and
replacing it with crossing:signals=yes, i.e. placing pedestrian
signalization on a dedicated tag that is separate from
39 matches
Mail list logo
