Have you tried writing to them using changeset comment?
Oct 17, 2022, 20:17 by r...@hubris.org.uk:
> The same user whose edits gave rise to the post below appears to have decided
> to "standardise" crossing tagging on crossings in Newham, most of which I
> have surveyed and mapped, with the
On 17/10/2022 19:17, Robert Skedgell wrote:
1) tactile_paving=yes on crossing ways, although none of the ways have tactile
paving along their entire length. This may be a result of copying all the tags
from the crossing node to the way, but could be unhelpful for any data
consumers which
The same user whose edits gave rise to the post below appears to have
decided to "standardise" crossing tagging on crossings in Newham, most
of which I have surveyed and mapped, with the following innovations:
1) tactile_paving=yes on crossing ways, although none of the ways have
tactile
I support crossing:island=separate.
It is unambiguous and in analogy to a lot of other taggings like sidewalks.
On 27/09/2022 09:49, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
Sep 27, 2022, 08:42 by r...@hubris.org.uk:
Where there is a crossing with traffic islands, but the highways
Sep 27, 2022, 08:42 by r...@hubris.org.uk:
> Where there is a crossing with traffic islands, but the highways forming the
> crossings and crossing the islands are mapped separately, my assumption has
> been that crossing:island=no is the correct tagging.
>
What "crossing:island" means
Where there is a crossing with traffic islands, but the highways forming the crossings and crossing the islands are mapped separately, my assumption has been that crossing:island=no is the correct tagging.
I agree. My understanding is that you can provide information about
pedestrian refuges
Where there is a crossing with traffic islands, but the highways forming
the crossings and crossing the islands are mapped separately, my
assumption has been that crossing:island=no is the correct tagging.
If a visually impaired user is being told to expect additional islands
or refuges where
