subject:"\[Tagging\] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra"

sent from a phone

> On 26. Oct 2018, at 18:24, SelfishSeahorse  wrote:
> 
> That's true and i agree, but how would you name a tag of a pedestrian
> crossing where pedestrians have right of way (and that doesn't have
> traffic lights) crossing=pedestrian_right_of_way?

for me that’s a crossing=zebra, but this might just be because I’ve never 
mapped in a country with crossings where pedestrians took precedence that were 
not zebra crossings.

Cheers, Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 17:13, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
> > On 26. Oct 2018, at 16:39, SelfishSeahorse  
> > wrote:
> >
> > Because road markings at crossings tell pedestrians if they have right
> > of way or not.
>
> it depends on the jurisdiction which kind of markings have which implications 
> or meanings. We’re mostly interested in collecting a model of the meanings, 
> the physical representations are more a kind of source for this information. 
> Nice as an addon, but not essential for the model (but also not useless).

That's true and i agree, but how would you name a tag of a pedestrian
crossing where pedestrians have right of way (and that doesn't have
traffic lights) crossing=pedestrian_right_of_way?

It seems easier to tag what's visible on the ground.

Regards
Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 17:09, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
> On 26. Oct 2018, at 16:39, SelfishSeahorse  wrote:
> >
> > Yes, the (yellow) zebra crossings are called 'zebra stripes'
> > (Zebrastreifen) -- or officially 'pedestrian stripes'
> > (Fussgängerstreifen) -- independently if there are traffic lights or
> > not.
>
>
> is a sign required in switzerland [...]

In rural areas a sign [1] is required, in built-up areas it is only
required if the crossing is badly visible.

[1]: 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CH-Hinweissignal-Standort_eines_Fussgängerstreifens.svg

> [...] and do pedestrian take precedence?

Without traffic lights, pedestrians have always the right of way. With
traffic lights, pedestrians only have right of way when the light is
green.

> Are there additional signs at traffic lights?

No.

Regards
Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On 26/10/18 16:14, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

>> On 26. Oct 2018, at 16:41, Robert Skedgell  wrote:
>>
>> An unmarked crossing may have no road markings or signs, but if there is
>> tactile paving and/or a raised/lowered/flush kerb on the footway
>> (sidewalk), how else would one tag it?
> 
> 
> obstacle=trap

Our local traffic planners are usually more creative when they design
obstacle=trap as a highway "feature".

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra



sent from a phone

> On 26. Oct 2018, at 16:41, Robert Skedgell  wrote:
> 
> An unmarked crossing may have no road markings or signs, but if there is
> tactile paving and/or a raised/lowered/flush kerb on the footway
> (sidewalk), how else would one tag it?


obstacle=trap


Cheers, Martin 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

sent from a phone

> On 26. Oct 2018, at 16:39, SelfishSeahorse  wrote:
> 
> Because road markings at crossings tell pedestrians if they have right
> of way or not.

it depends on the jurisdiction which kind of markings have which implications 
or meanings. We’re mostly interested in collecting a model of the meanings, the 
physical representations are more a kind of source for this information. Nice 
as an addon, but not essential for the model (but also not useless).

Cheers, Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra



sent from a phone

> On 26. Oct 2018, at 16:39, SelfishSeahorse  wrote:
> 
> Yes, the (yellow) zebra crossings are called 'zebra stripes'
> (Zebrastreifen) -- or officially 'pedestrian stripes'
> (Fussgängerstreifen) -- independently if there are traffic lights or
> not.


is a sign required in switzerland and do pedestrian take precedence?

Are there additional signs at traffic lights?

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra



On 26/10/18 15:39, SelfishSeahorse wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 16:14, Martin Koppenhoefer
>  wrote:

>> we generally do not map road markings, we don’t map the divider lines
between lanes, we don’t map diagonally striped areas where traffic can’t
go, we don’t map stop lines, we don’t map any road markings, why’s there
so much focus on the road markings in this thread?
> 
> Because road markings at crossings tell pedestrians if they have right
> of way or not.

Because, at least in the UK, they are legally defined as traffic signs,
failure to comply with which may be a criminal offence.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On 26/10/18 14:49, marc marc wrote:
> Le 26. 10. 18 à 10:27, Robert Skedgell a écrit :
>> Do you have any UK examples of zebra crossings with traffic signals?
> 
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/D8E
> I dind't have any local knownledge of those but you can see that some 
> mapper repport a zebra ground painting and a traffic light that apply
> to a crossing

Thanks!

I've taken a look at a few of these in Google Street View (which
obviously can't be used as a data source). The ones I have looked at
appear to be tagging errors, which probably should have been tagged as
e.g. crossing=traffic_signals + crossing_ref=pelican / crossing=pelican.

I'll resurvey the 3 nodes nearer to London at some point in the next few
months, when I'm cycling out in that part of Bedfordshire/Hertforshire.

If there were any UK combined traffic signals and zebra crossings, they
would have to be listed as DfT authorisations for non-standard traffic
signs at https://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-auths/

-- 
Robert Skedgell (rskedgell)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

Le 26. 10. 18 à 14:57, SelfishSeahorse a écrit :
> How would you tag the absence of traffic signals? crossing=no_traffic_signals?

the most common is crossing=uncontrolled
some mappers find it a bad value (and it is)
but again, imho that need another propal to avoid
an all-in-one too-big-to-be-accepted propal

> And what about the absence of road markings? crossing_ref=unmarked?

some mapper use crossing_ref=unmarked or crossing_ref=none
but imho trying to fix that in the same time 'll fail.

Regards,
Marc
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

2018-10-26 Thread Tobias Knerr

On 26.10.2018 11:11, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> In general crossing tag is attempting to tag several different things
> at once - for example how I am supposed to tag crossing with island,
> traffic lights and zebra markings in Poland?

The presence of an island is quite commonly tagged as crossing:island=yes.

There's currently no established tagging for a crossing that has both
traffic lights and a zebra pattern, which calls for the invention of a
new tag.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

2018-10-26 Thread Tobias Knerr

On 26.10.2018 16:24, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> Do you see the contradiction? If the crossing is unmarked, the ground
> object already does not provide any guidance. As we map what's on the
> ground, there is nothing to map.

It's not uncommon for a crossing to be physically evident on the ground
(e.g. because of lowered kerbs) even if there are no painted markings.
To me, that would be a typical example of an unmarked crossing.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

Le 26. 10. 18 à 11:53, Max a écrit :
> In Germany you have either zebra markings or traffic lights, NEVER both.

so some tagging errors in Germany or that exist but you don't known it 
for ex https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2965700264
With the aerial imagery Ersi, I see the zebra and a pole...
maybe a traffic light for the crossing
the same with this one https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2051961031

:)

but of course maybe I'm fully wrong with those 2 cases.
but that doesn't solve the issue for several other country :)

Regards,
Marc
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On 26/10/18 11:44, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> On 26.10.2018 09:28, SelfishSeahorse wrote:
>> What about tagging the presence or absence of traffic signals with a
>> subkey, e.g. crossing:traffic_signals=yes/no?
> 
> Why should we invent a new subtagging scheme when we already have one
> with crossing=* + crossing_ref=* ?
> 
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 01:19, Bryan Housel  wrote:
>> - `crossing=unmarked` which is labeled “Unmarked Crossing”
> 
> Tagging "unmarked crossings" does not make sense for me. An unmarked
> crossing is defined in OSM by a road and a footway sharing a node, there
> is no need for a tag here, as there is nothing special.

An unmarked crossing may have no road markings or signs, but if there is
tactile paving and/or a raised/lowered/flush kerb on the footway
(sidewalk), how else would one tag it?

> Otherwise I would need to set a node every meter on the road, tagging it
> "unmarked crossing" because I can cross the road everywhere.
> 
> And I hate it when the satnav announces a warning for the upcoming
> crossing, and there comes nothing the requires extra attention.

-- 
Robert Skedgell (rskedgell)


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 16:14, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 26. Oct 2018, at 14:57, SelfishSeahorse  
> > wrote:
> >
> > And what about the absence of road markings? crossing_ref=unmarked?
>
>
> we generally do not map road markings, we don’t map the divider lines between 
> lanes, we don’t map diagonally striped areas where traffic can’t go, we don’t 
> map stop lines, we don’t map any road markings, why’s there so much focus on 
> the road markings in this thread?

Because road markings at crossings tell pedestrians if they have right
of way or not.

>
> The interesting information (IMHO) is whether there are traffic lights or 
> not, where the crossings without signals are and whether crossing pedestrians 
> take precedence over vehicles. The actual signs and markings for this are 
> kind of a sideshow for the traffic sign nerds, important to know for the 
> jurisdictions where you map, but nothing that must necessarily be explicitly 
> mapped. We are interested in the effects, aren’t we?

Agree.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 16:17, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
> in Switzerland? In Italy they aren’t called zebra crossings (despite the 
> markings), they’re called traffic lights with pedestrian crossing. A zebra 
> crossing here means there aren’t traffic lights.

Yes, the (yellow) zebra crossings are called 'zebra stripes'
(Zebrastreifen) -- or officially 'pedestrian stripes'
(Fussgängerstreifen) -- independently if there are traffic lights or
not.

Regards

Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

sent from a phone

> On 26. Oct 2018, at 16:22, Tobias Knerr  wrote:
> 
> There already is a perfectly fine value for marked crosswalks, which is
> called "uncontrolled".

it unfortunately isn’t perfectly fine, it is completely self contradicting, 
because markings are a kind of control. It is counterintuitive and I subscribe 
to the anecdotal findings Bryan has reported: not knowing about anything osm, 
someone will usually think uncontrolled means unmarked.

Then again, I also support you and others in telling Bryan to wait a bit before 
introducing the next competing alternative via editor presets.

Cheers, Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

2018-10-26 Thread Tom Pfeifer

On 26.10.2018 15:37, Bryan Housel wrote:

On Oct 26, 2018, at 6:44 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

Tagging "unmarked crossings" does not make sense for me. An unmarked crossing
is defined in OSM by a road and a footway sharing a node, there is no need for a tag
here, as there is nothing special.

Otherwise I would need to set a node every meter on the road, tagging it "unmarked
crossing" because I can cross the road everywhere.

Try to imagine what crossing the street might be like for someone who can not
cross the road everywhere and could benefit from guidance to tell them where it
is possible or safe.

Do you see the contradiction? If the crossing is unmarked, the ground object already does not
provide any guidance. As we map what's on the ground, there is nothing to map.

And I hate it when the satnav announces a warning for the upcoming crossing,
and there comes nothing the requires extra attention.

Again, try to have some empathy towards other users who are not you. It’s
great that you are such an attentive driver. If the satnav warning helps bad
drivers not hit kids, I’m all for it.

It's not about empathy, it's about psychology. If you hear the same warning at each and every
corner, again and again, you stop listening, and eventually switch it off.

The warning is useful when it comes only in situations that are different, such as a marked crossing
where the pedestrian has priority, and often exercises it without watching or very suddenly.

tom

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

sent from a phone

> On 26. Oct 2018, at 15:37, Bryan Housel  wrote:
> 
> Try to imagine what crossing the street might be like for someone who can not 
> cross the road everywhere and could benefit from guidance to tell them where 
> it is possible or safe.

how would this be verifiable? If there are no signs and marks, will mappers 
have to produce statistics about places where people cross, and possibly how 
many incidents there are?

I acknowledge the American situation is very different to the European because 
over here there’s no concept like jaywalking, so for Europe I must agree with 
Tom: without any markings and signs it seems arbitrary where to put crossing 
possibilities.

Cheers, Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

2018-10-26 Thread Tobias Knerr

On 26.10.2018 01:18, Bryan Housel wrote:
> Oh!  I don’t like `crossing=zebra` either.  Not sure whether you caught the 
> end of that issue #4788, but anyway I've decided I'm tired of hearing people 
> complain about `crossing=zebra` so going forward iD will support these 2 
> presets: 
> 
> - `crossing=marked` which is labeled “Marked Crosswalk"  
> - `crossing=unmarked` which is labeled “Unmarked Crossing” 

There already is a perfectly fine value for marked crosswalks, which is
called "uncontrolled". Replacing this with the barely-used "marked" (100
times fewer uses than "uncontrolled") seems unhelpful. After all, the
issue that gave rise to the "zebra" value isn't to distinguish marked
from unmarked crossings. It's to distinguish two different types of
marked-but-uncontrolled crossings.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

sent from a phone

> On 26. Oct 2018, at 15:15, SelfishSeahorse  wrote:
> 
> Because there are countries where pedestrian crossings with traffic
> signals also have zebra markings and it's not obvious that
> crossing=zebra excludes crossings with traffic signals (they are even
> called zebra crossings too).

in Switzerland? In Italy they aren’t called zebra crossings (despite the 
markings), they’re called traffic lights with pedestrian crossing. A zebra 
crossing here means there aren’t traffic lights. 

Cheers, Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

sent from a phone

> On 26. Oct 2018, at 14:57, SelfishSeahorse  wrote:
> 
> And what about the absence of road markings? crossing_ref=unmarked?

we generally do not map road markings, we don’t map the divider lines between 
lanes, we don’t map diagonally striped areas where traffic can’t go, we don’t 
map stop lines, we don’t map any road markings, why’s there so much focus on 
the road markings in this thread? 

The interesting information (IMHO) is whether there are traffic lights or not, 
where the crossings without signals are and whether crossing pedestrians take 
precedence over vehicles. The actual signs and markings for this are kind of a 
sideshow for the traffic sign nerds, important to know for the jurisdictions 
where you map, but nothing that must necessarily be explicitly mapped. We are 
interested in the effects, aren’t we?

Cheers, Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra



sent from a phone

> On 26. Oct 2018, at 12:26, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> Re: precedence of vertical signalling over horizontal signalling
> I am not sure about this here in Italy and even less so in other countries.


I’m not sure for Italy either but I’m sure for Germany, there is a hierarchy 
policeman - traffic lights- vertical signs - horizontal signs/road markings 


> We do have here many crossings that consist only of painted zebra stripes on 
> the ground without any vertical sign.


yes, but these aren’t zebra crossings according to the cds, do you agree?
(unless in proximity to a road crossing)

Cheers, Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 15:29, Bryan Housel  wrote:
>
> `crossing=marked` and `crossing=unmarked` are not new.  They’ve been in use 
> for years.
>
> They solve the problem in that they are unambiguous and beginner-friendly.

Unfortunately crossing=marked doesn't make a difference compared to
crossing=zebra. It's still not possible to tag a marked (zebra)
crossing with traffic signals (except from
crossing=marked;traffic_signals, which data users possibly can't
handle).

And if it's intended that crossing=marked excludes marked crossings
with traffic signals, it isn't unambiguous any more.

Regards

Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

Le 26. 10. 18 à 10:27, Robert Skedgell a écrit :
> Do you have any UK examples of zebra crossings with traffic signals?

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/D8E
I dind't have any local knownledge of those but you can see that some 
mapper repport a zebra ground painting and a traffic light that apply
to a crossing
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

2018-10-26 Thread Bryan Housel

> On Oct 26, 2018, at 6:44 AM, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:
> 
> Tagging "unmarked crossings" does not make sense for me. An unmarked crossing 
> is defined in OSM by a road and a footway sharing a node, there is no need 
> for a tag here, as there is nothing special.
> 
> Otherwise I would need to set a node every meter on the road, tagging it 
> "unmarked crossing" because I can cross the road everywhere.

How fortunate for you! 
Try to imagine what crossing the street might be like for someone who can not 
cross the road everywhere and could benefit from guidance to tell them where it 
is possible or safe.

> And I hate it when the satnav announces a warning for the upcoming crossing, 
> and there comes nothing the requires extra attention.

Again, try to have some empathy towards other users who are not you.  It’s 
great that you are such an attentive driver.  If the satnav warning helps bad 
drivers not hit kids, I’m all for it.

Thanks, Bryan

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 12:53, Jyri-Petteri Paloposki
 wrote:
>
> On 26.10.2018 10.44, SelfishSeahorse wrote:
> > There are some marked non-zebra crossings in Switzerland:
> >
> > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/zMqUsiFYNMiJ3_kA4ODHSQ
> > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/OVsXNBwnJXFIAobJxFjUlQ
> >
> > However, i'm unsure if vehicles have to stop there if pedestrians want
> > to cross. (Vehicles have to stop at the yellow 'zebra' crossings.)
>
> In Finland the marking in the first image is for an ”extension of a
> cycleway”, ie. a place for cyclists to cross the road. It's not meant
> for foot traffic and doesn't give cyclists precedence over traffic on
> the road, unlike a marked footway crossing.

There's a cycleway that ends about 50 m next to that road markings.
Maybe it has been painted at the wrong place. :-) (It's not uncommon
that road markings or signs are misplaced or illogical. My favourite
is this sign [1] places some metres in front of stairs.)

[1]: 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CH-Hinweissignal-Sackgasse_mit_Ausnahmen.svg

>
> The second one would in Finland probably be used for marking the edges
> of a bump, also having no effect on the precedence of traffic modes.

Thanks for your explanations. Could be that the authorities intended
that car drivers slow down by pretending that there is a speed table
(kind of a visual speed table).

Regards

Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

2018-10-26 Thread Bryan Housel

> On Oct 26, 2018, at 6:26 AM, marc marc  wrote:
> 
> Le 26. 10. 18 à 01:18, Bryan Housel a écrit :
>> I don’t like `crossing=zebra` either.<...> iD will support these 2 presets:
>> - `crossing=marked` which is labeled “Marked Crosswalk"
>> - `crossing=unmarked` which is labeled “Unmarked Crossing”
> 
> thanks for understanding that a issue exist, the first step
> to solve it :)
> 
> but I don't understand how the new preset will solve the problem

Well.. The “problem” is not a tag problem, but rather a people problem.  

Even experienced OSM contributors can’t agree on what the top values for 
crossing mean (this thread should make this point clear) and beginner 
contributors are hopelessly lost because the current top values don’t even 
sound like what they are trying to represent.  (you can review the top values 
here:  https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/crossing#values)

“crossing=uncontrolled” - all new people I’ve talked to think this means “no 
markings”.  People with experience in traffic planning understand road markings 
as control devices.

“crossing=traffic_signals” - new people usually assume this means “has a button 
and walk/don't walk sign” - It says nothing about the markings or the safety of 
whether you should even cross there.  In many places there are traffic_signals 
but no markings.

“crossing=zebra” - new people think this is weird, but understand it means 
stripes on the ground like the Abbey Road album cover. 

“crossing=island” - nobody I have talked to knows how to use this tag.

> since you put the marking information in the key whose main use is to 
> inform the security of the passage (presence or not of traffic lights)
> We had 2 incompatible schemas, let's avoid to create a third one :)

`crossing=marked` and `crossing=unmarked` are not new.  They’ve been in use for 
years.

They solve the problem in that they are unambiguous and beginner-friendly.

Thanks,
Bryan

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 12:46, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:
>
> Why should we invent a new subtagging scheme when we already have one with 
> crossing=* + crossing_ref=* ?

Because there are countries where pedestrian crossings with traffic
signals also have zebra markings and it's not obvious that
crossing=zebra excludes crossings with traffic signals (they are even
called zebra crossings too). Therefore these crossings often get
wrongly tagged crossing=zebra.

Besides, the meaning of crossing=uncontrolled is even less clear.

> On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 01:19, Bryan Housel  wrote:
>  > - `crossing=unmarked` which is labeled “Unmarked Crossing”
>
> Tagging "unmarked crossings" does not make sense for me. An unmarked crossing 
> is defined in OSM by a
> road and a footway sharing a node, there is no need for a tag here, as there 
> is nothing special.

The absence of a highway=crossing (and a crossing=*) tag on a node
shared by a road and a footway doesn't mean that there is an unmarked
crossing, it could also mean that the footway continues on the
sidewalk or that the pedestrian crossing hasn't been mapped yet.

Regards

Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 12:37, marc marc  wrote:
>
> Le 26. 10. 18 à 09:28, SelfishSeahorse a écrit :
> > What about tagging the presence or absence of traffic signals with a
> > subkey, e.g. crossing:traffic_signals=yes/no?
>
> it is indeed always possible to take out all the values to make
> them keys.
> but if iD only enters the marking in crossing_ref like the other
> editors, the crossing key will again indicate whether or not there is a
> light. so is it useful to change the name of the key there too?

How would you tag the absence of traffic signals? crossing=no_traffic_signals?

And what about the absence of road markings? crossing_ref=unmarked?

> experience shows that if you want to change everything, in the end
> nothing changes because many contributors have started from immobility
> when the solution is too large. that is why I think it is useful to
> focus on how to correctly inform the type of ground marking

If we can solve the problem with less change that's fine too, but the
solution should be unambiguous and clear.

Regards

Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

2018-10-26 Thread Jyri-Petteri Paloposki

On 26.10.2018 13.26, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> Re: marking= zebra
> Problem is that the zebra stripes can have different meaning in
> different countries. In Italy it can mean, depending on the context:
> "foot-only" or "foot-and-bicycle". In addition we also have additional
> non-zebra signing for bicycles.
> It would be much better to distinguish between "marked" and "unmarked"
> for the horizontal signalling, without specifying the signalling details
> and use foot=yes|no and bicycle=yes|no|dismount (?) to indicate the type
> of traffic that can cross.
> 
> Re: precedence of vertical signalling over horizontal signalling
> I am not sure about this here in Italy and even less so in other countries.
> We do have here many crossings that consist only of painted zebra
> stripes on the ground without any vertical sign.
> 
> Re: Zebra markings with traffic lights
> This standard in Italy.
> In Germany the standard for that looks different: two rows of dashed
> white stripes (may we should call that Okapi), but the meaning is the same.

Aaaand here's Finland, just to mix things up :)

In Finland crossings controlled with traffic lights often (if not
always) have also a vertical signal and zebra markings, which are only
in effect if the traffic lights are off for some reason.

A footway crossing that gives foot traffic precedence is marked with a
vertical signal and MAY be marked with a zebra marking. Both are usually
used, but not always, and a missing zebra marking doesn't have any
effect on the meaning of the controls.

There's another kind of marking, which is kind of a ”cut” zebra marking
(like this: https://www.finlex.fi/data/sdliite/liikm/5818.gif ). This
may be on the side of a zebra marking or by itself, and it designates a
bicycle and moped crossing. The bicycle crossing has no effect on
precedence of the traffic modes.

Best regards,
-- 
Jyri-Petteri Paloposki

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

2018-10-26 Thread Jyri-Petteri Paloposki

On 26.10.2018 10.44, SelfishSeahorse wrote:
> There are some marked non-zebra crossings in Switzerland:
> 
> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/zMqUsiFYNMiJ3_kA4ODHSQ
> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/OVsXNBwnJXFIAobJxFjUlQ
> 
> However, i'm unsure if vehicles have to stop there if pedestrians want
> to cross. (Vehicles have to stop at the yellow 'zebra' crossings.)

In Finland the marking in the first image is for an ”extension of a
cycleway”, ie. a place for cyclists to cross the road. It's not meant
for foot traffic and doesn't give cyclists precedence over traffic on
the road, unlike a marked footway crossing.

The second one would in Finland probably be used for marking the edges
of a bump, also having no effect on the precedence of traffic modes.

Best regards,
-- 
Jyri-Petteri Paloposki

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

Le 26. 10. 18 à 09:41, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
> traffic light controlled crossings also have zebra markings.

so a crossing with a zebra ground marking (as a armchair mapper may 
create) must not be mapped with crossing=zebra :)
It's the need to move ground marking out of the crossing=* key
to get back one key for traffic light and another key for ground marking
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

2018-10-26 Thread Tom Pfeifer


On 26.10.2018 09:28, SelfishSeahorse wrote:

What about tagging the presence or absence of traffic signals with a
subkey, e.g. crossing:traffic_signals=yes/no?


Why should we invent a new subtagging scheme when we already have one with 
crossing=* + crossing_ref=* ?

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 01:19, Bryan Housel  wrote:
> - `crossing=unmarked` which is labeled “Unmarked Crossing”

Tagging "unmarked crossings" does not make sense for me. An unmarked crossing is defined in OSM by a 
road and a footway sharing a node, there is no need for a tag here, as there is nothing special.


Otherwise I would need to set a node every meter on the road, tagging it "unmarked crossing" because 
I can cross the road everywhere.


And I hate it when the satnav announces a warning for the upcoming crossing, and there comes nothing 
the requires extra attention.


tom

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

Le 26. 10. 18 à 09:28, SelfishSeahorse a écrit :
> What about tagging the presence or absence of traffic signals with a
> subkey, e.g. crossing:traffic_signals=yes/no?

it is indeed always possible to take out all the values to make
them keys.
but if iD only enters the marking in crossing_ref like the other 
editors, the crossing key will again indicate whether or not there is a 
light. so is it useful to change the name of the key there too?
experience shows that if you want to change everything, in the end 
nothing changes because many contributors have started from immobility 
when the solution is too large. that is why I think it is useful to 
focus on how to correctly inform the type of ground marking

> I've already proposed to replace crossing=island with
> crossing:island=yes [1] for the same reason, that is, because when
> using crossing=island, it's not possible to specify if the pedestrian
> crossing is marked or not.
> [1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:crossing:island

It's a good idea (and I like that the propal focus on one tag/issue
in order to hope that this will facilitate its adoption
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

Le 26. 10. 18 à 01:18, Bryan Housel a écrit :
> I don’t like `crossing=zebra` either.<...> iD will support these 2 presets:
> - `crossing=marked` which is labeled “Marked Crosswalk"
> - `crossing=unmarked` which is labeled “Unmarked Crossing”

thanks for understanding that a issue exist, the first step
to solve it :)

but I don't understand how the new preset will solve the problem
since you put the marking information in the key whose main use is to 
inform the security of the passage (presence or not of traffic lights)
We had 2 incompatible schemas, let's avoid to create a third one :)

Without wishing to draw too hasty a conclusion from this discussion,
a coherent scheme would be to have :
crossing with the usual current meaning (traffic lights or not)
crossing_ref with the type of marking (this key might need a better 
name, but I know that osm is very reluctant to change historically
bad names...)
It is then enough for the preset to ask:
marking on the ground or not ? fill corssing_ref
protected by traffic lights or not ? fill crossing

if a armchair mapper ignore if the crossing is protected by traffic 
lights or not, don't fill the crossing key.
that 'll allow other mapper to see that the info is not filled and they 
may act in stead of guessing (is marked used to tell that no traffic 
lights exist ou that's it's unknown ?)

Regards,
Marc
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

2018-10-26 Thread Volker Schmidt

Re: marking= zebra
Problem is that the zebra stripes can have different meaning in different
countries. In Italy it can mean, depending on the context: "foot-only" or
"foot-and-bicycle". In addition we also have additional non-zebra signing
for bicycles.
It would be much better to distinguish between "marked" and "unmarked" for
the horizontal signalling, without specifying the signalling details and
use foot=yes|no and bicycle=yes|no|dismount (?) to indicate the type of
traffic that can cross.

Re: precedence of vertical signalling over horizontal signalling
I am not sure about this here in Italy and even less so in other countries.
We do have here many crossings that consist only of painted zebra stripes
on the ground without any vertical sign.

Re: Zebra markings with traffic lights
This standard in Italy.
In Germany the standard for that looks different: two rows of dashed white
stripes (may we should call that Okapi), but the meaning is the same.

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 11:35, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> Am Fr., 26. Okt. 2018 um 11:30 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <
> matkoni...@tutanota.com>:
>
>> Am Fr., 26. Okt. 2018 um 11:12 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <
>> matkoni...@tutanota.com>:
>>
>> In general crossing tag is attempting to tag several different things
>>>
>>> at once - for example how I am supposed to tag crossing with island,
>>>
>>> traffic lights and zebra markings in Poland?
>>>
>>
>>
>> in the simplest case (dual carriageway connected with traffic lights),
>> you could tag them like this:
>>
>> footway connecting the dual carriageway.
>>
>> start and end node:
>> highway=crossing
>> crossing=traffic_signals
>>
>>
>> Not on nodes shared by road and footway?
>>
>
>
> it is the same (see the assumption above). If sidewalks are mapped, the
> better description would indeed have been intersection of road with
> sidewalk.
>
>
>>
>>
>> on the way:
>> highway=footway
>> footway=crossing
>> crossing=traffic_island
>>
>>
>> Tagging way crossing=traffic_island and nodes crossing=traffic_signals is
>>
>> deeply not obvious.
>>
>
> as I wrote, you could limit this to the part on the island.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
>
> ___
> 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] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

2018-10-26 Thread Mateusz Konieczny

26. Oct 2018 11:55 by selfishseaho...@gmail.com 
:

> On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 11:12, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
> > > wrote:
>>
>> Yes. For example in Poland there are crossing markings that look
>> very similar and have the same name with different legal
>> implications.
>
> Is there more than one marked crossings type w/o traffic signals in
> Poland? That is, one where pedestrians have right of way and another
> where vehicles have right of way?
>

AFAIK no. Maybe there are some edge cases with marked bicycle crossings 
withoutaccompanying pedestrians crossings and not marked as forbidden for 
pedestrians.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra



On 26/10/18 10:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Fr., 26. Okt. 2018 um 11:21 Uhr schrieb Robert Skedgell
> mailto:r...@hubris.org.uk>>:
> 
> 
> I wonder if it's possible differentiate between a normal traffic signal
> controlled crossing, an uncontrolled zebra crossing and the type of
> crossing you describe using appropriate values of traffic_sign=* ? 
> 
> 
> 
> maybe, generally I would prefer to distinguish between vertical traffic
> signs and road markings in our tagging, as the former take precendence
> over markings.

I did say I risked being parochial in my assumptions :-)

In the UK road markings are also traffic signs and an upright sign does
not necessarily take precedence. For example, the give way transverse
road marking (= = = = =) is required whether the red inverted triangle
upright sign is present or not. Failure to comply with either is an offence.

> Often there are also other signs on traffic signal controlled
> intersections, like stop or give way signs, which only go into effect in
> the case of the traffic lights turned off (common situation in Germany).
> Maybe someone is interested in finding a solution for these as well, or
> maybe it already exists?

More of a headache than I imagined.

-- 
Robert Skedgell (rskedgell)


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 11:30, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
>
> Tagging way crossing=traffic_island and nodes crossing=traffic_signals is
> deeply not obvious.

+1. That's too complicated. Furthermore it doesn't work on
one-carriageway roads like e.g. here:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/893451214

Regards
Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 11:12, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
>
> Yes. For example in Poland there are crossing markings that look
> very similar and have the same name with different legal
> implications.

Is there more than one marked crossings type w/o traffic signals in
Poland? That is, one where pedestrians have right of way and another
where vehicles have right of way?

Regards
Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

2018-10-26 Thread Max


On 26.10.18 11:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Often there are also other signs on traffic signal controlled 
intersections, like stop or give way signs, which only go into effect in 
the case of the traffic lights turned off (common situation in Germany). 
Just to clarify: In Germany you have either zebra markings or traffic 
lights, NEVER both. Zebra marking means that road traffic has to stop 
for pedestrians at any time.
I've seen in Spain that zebra markings were removed for crossings with 
traffic lights, so maybe this is becoming more of a standard in other 
places too.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

Am Fr., 26. Okt. 2018 um 11:30 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <
matkoni...@tutanota.com>:

> Am Fr., 26. Okt. 2018 um 11:12 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <
> matkoni...@tutanota.com>:
>
> In general crossing tag is attempting to tag several different things
>>
>> at once - for example how I am supposed to tag crossing with island,
>>
>> traffic lights and zebra markings in Poland?
>>
>
>
> in the simplest case (dual carriageway connected with traffic lights), you
> could tag them like this:
>
> footway connecting the dual carriageway.
>
> start and end node:
> highway=crossing
> crossing=traffic_signals
>
>
> Not on nodes shared by road and footway?
>


it is the same (see the assumption above). If sidewalks are mapped, the
better description would indeed have been intersection of road with
sidewalk.


>
>
> on the way:
> highway=footway
> footway=crossing
> crossing=traffic_island
>
>
> Tagging way crossing=traffic_island and nodes crossing=traffic_signals is
>
> deeply not obvious.
>

as I wrote, you could limit this to the part on the island.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

2018-10-26 Thread Mateusz Konieczny

> A traffic light controlled crossing is not a zebra crossing, even if it has 
> zebra markings (also here they do have zebra markings)



And it may be root of problem. In Poland "zebra" is synonym of  "marked 
pedestrian crossing" - 
seehttps://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przej%C5%9Bcie_dla_pieszych 

No amount of documentation will protect from mappers using crossing=zebra.
Maybe crossing=united_kingdom_zebra would work.

markings=zebra is much better as mappers will be less likely to misinterpret 
(thoughthere may be other pitfalls).

26. Oct 2018 11:22 by dieterdre...@gmail.com :


>
>
> Am Fr., 26. Okt. 2018 um 11:12 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <> 
> matkoni...@tutanota.com > >:
>
>>   
>> In general crossing tag is attempting to tag several different things 
>>
>>
>> at once - for example how I am supposed to tag crossing with island,
>>
>> traffic lights and zebra markings in Poland?
>>
>
>
> in the simplest case (dual carriageway connected with traffic lights), you 
> could tag them like this:
> footway connecting the dual carriageway.
> start and end node:> highway=crossing> crossing=traffic_signals




Not on nodes shared by road and footway? 


 

> on the way:> highway=footway> footway=crossing> crossing=traffic_island




Tagging way crossing=traffic_island and nodes crossing=traffic_signals is

deeply not obvious.


 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

Am Fr., 26. Okt. 2018 um 11:21 Uhr schrieb Robert Skedgell <
r...@hubris.org.uk>:

>
> I wonder if it's possible differentiate between a normal traffic signal
> controlled crossing, an uncontrolled zebra crossing and the type of
> crossing you describe using appropriate values of traffic_sign=* ?



maybe, generally I would prefer to distinguish between vertical traffic
signs and road markings in our tagging, as the former take precendence over
markings.
Often there are also other signs on traffic signal controlled
intersections, like stop or give way signs, which only go into effect in
the case of the traffic lights turned off (common situation in Germany).
Maybe someone is interested in finding a solution for these as well, or
maybe it already exists?

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

Am Fr., 26. Okt. 2018 um 11:12 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <
matkoni...@tutanota.com>:

> In general crossing tag is attempting to tag several different things
>
> at once - for example how I am supposed to tag crossing with island,
>
> traffic lights and zebra markings in Poland?
>


in the simplest case (dual carriageway connected with traffic lights), you
could tag them like this:

footway connecting the dual carriageway.

start and end node:
highway=crossing
crossing=traffic_signals

on the way:
highway=footway
footway=crossing
crossing=traffic_island

(for micromapping you might even split the footway, so that the traffic
island part is only above the island)


While I would tag the kind of crossing, I would not usually tag the kind of
road markings, but you could use any tag to do so, like
marking=zebra

A traffic light controlled crossing is not a zebra crossing, even if it has
zebra markings (also here they do have zebra markings).

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On 26/10/18 09:34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Fr., 26. Okt. 2018 um 10:28 Uhr schrieb Robert Skedgell
> mailto:r...@hubris.org.uk>>:
> 
> At a zebra crossing, vehicles must give precedence to pedestrians on the
> crossing. No traffic signals are necessary to stop traffic in order for
> pedestrians to cross.
> 
> It may be the case that there are zebra crossings very close to a
> junction with traffic lights, but these are really separate entities and
> should be mapped as such.
> 
> I believe the main reason for using zebra markings at traffic signal
> controlled crossings in some places is that they will give precedence to
> pedestrians even when the lights are turned off.
> 

Thanks, Martin, that's a case which I wasn't aware of. Luckily for me,
it isn't one which can occur here in the UK. (See
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14/made )

I wonder if it's possible differentiate between a normal traffic signal
controlled crossing, an uncontrolled zebra crossing and the type of
crossing you describe using appropriate values of traffic_sign=* ? I'm
making the possibly parochial assumption that traffic signals and road
markings are considered to be traffic signs in the jurisdictions concerned.

-- 
Robert Skedgell (rskedgell)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

2018-10-26 Thread Mateusz Konieczny

25. Oct 2018 23:39 by marc_marc_...@hotmail.com 
:


> so my request is : how to avoid again a multi-meaning tag ?




Create multiple tags and do not attempt to create shortcut again.




In general crossing tag is attempting to tag several different things 


at once - for example how I am supposed to tag crossing with island,

traffic lights and zebra markings in Poland?

 


> may/must we separate the type of crossing from the ground marking ?
>




Yes. For example in Poland there are crossing markings that look

very similar and have the same name with different legal 


implications.




People in that situation will use crossing=zebra, no matter what was

original intention of fist uers and what is documented on wiki

as the intended meaning,


 


> it doesn't scare me to propose a mass edition once a coherent scheme
> has been found. 




Note that it is unfixable with mass edit. Resurvey of everything is basically 
needed.


And it is one more reason for people caring about this information to fix it as

soon as possible.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

Am Fr., 26. Okt. 2018 um 10:28 Uhr schrieb Robert Skedgell <
r...@hubris.org.uk>:

> At a zebra crossing, vehicles must give precedence to pedestrians on the
> crossing. No traffic signals are necessary to stop traffic in order for
> pedestrians to cross.
>
> It may be the case that there are zebra crossings very close to a
> junction with traffic lights, but these are really separate entities and
> should be mapped as such.




I believe the main reason for using zebra markings at traffic signal
controlled crossings in some places is that they will give precedence to
pedestrians even when the lights are turned off.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra



On 25/10/18 22:39, marc marc wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I have a big issue with crossing=zebra.
> it prevent to fill in the other value for crossing like 
> crossing=traffic_signals crossing=uncontrolled
> the wiki [1] said that crossing=zebra is a shortchut for 
> crossing=uncontrolled + crossing_ref=zebra in the UK
> but a lot of zebra also in UK and outside UK have traffic_signals
> and must be tagged with crossing=traffic_signals
> so at the end, crossing=zebra has no meaning... maybe the previous 
> contributor mean crossing=uncontrolled + crossing_ref=zebra
> but maybe he mean only crossing_ref=zebra
> I fix a few week a lot of crossing=zebra crossing_1=traffic_signals
> or crossing=zebra;traffic_signals that show it's an issue.

Do you have any UK examples of zebra crossings with traffic signals?
From my understanding of UK traffic signs (which include road markings
and signals), this seems rather unlikely.

At a zebra crossing, vehicles must give precedence to pedestrians on the
crossing. No traffic signals are necessary to stop traffic in order for
pedestrians to cross.

It may be the case that there are zebra crossings very close to a
junction with traffic lights, but these are really separate entities and
should be mapped as such.

> a issue was closed in iD [2] some time ago because "the dev dislike 
> crossing_ref" (it is in fact a very ugly name for the tag)
> right now josm [3] is changing preset to drop cossing_ref=zebra
> in favor of crossing=zebra

I agree with the ugliness of crossing_ref=zebra. NOw the wiki has been
updated, I can happily get rid of it in all my edits.
> 
> I am part of a group of a group of mappers working on accessibility
> are planning to open a talk to fix it but the news of the commit flow 
> preceded us
> 
> so my request is : how to avoid again a multi-meaning tag ?
> 
> may/must we separate the type of crossing from the ground marking ?
> in short : move away crossing=zebra in another tag ? if yes
> is crossing_Re so ugly than in the same time another tag need
> to be used for the ground marking ?
> 
> let's avoid the argument of "there are too many cases to fix",
> it doesn't scare me to propose a mass edition once a coherent scheme
> has been found. but having half tools that fill a value with another 
> meaning than other or historical meaning is a big issue for the use
> of the data.
> 
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing
> [2] https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/4788
> [3] https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/16793
> 
> Regards,
> Marc
> ___
> 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] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 01:19, Bryan Housel  wrote:
>
> Oh!  I don’t like `crossing=zebra` either.  Not sure whether you caught the 
> end of that issue #4788, but anyway I've decided I'm tired of hearing people 
> complain about `crossing=zebra` so going forward iD will support these 2 
> presets:
>
> - `crossing=marked` which is labeled “Marked Crosswalk"
> - `crossing=unmarked` which is labeled “Unmarked Crossing”

If crossing=marked would exclude marked crossings with traffic
signals, that wouldn't solve the problem that Marc and i often come
across. If people see a marked crossing on the aerial imagery, they
would tag it crossing=marked, which would imply that this crossing
doesn't have traffic signals.

The problem with the crossing=* key is that it combines several
incompatible concepts, that is the presence or absence of traffic
signals, of road markings and of islands. It seems that the only
solution to this problem is moving all these properties to dedicated
subkeys, that is:

crossing:traffic_signals=yes/no
crossing:marked=yes/no
crossing:island=yes/no

Regards
Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 00:02, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
> I agree that in areas where marked pedestrian crossings aren’t marked as 
> zebra crossings, the tag could create problems or could not apply (I do not 
> know about such places but someone wrote it in the wiki).

There are some marked non-zebra crossings in Switzerland:

https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/zMqUsiFYNMiJ3_kA4ODHSQ
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/OVsXNBwnJXFIAobJxFjUlQ

However, i'm unsure if vehicles have to stop there if pedestrians want
to cross. (Vehicles have to stop at the yellow 'zebra' crossings.)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

Am Fr., 26. Okt. 2018 um 00:55 Uhr schrieb marc marc <
marc_marc_...@hotmail.com>:

> But "iD issue" is "load the aerial imagery, look for a zebra"
> select a node, search for crossing, select "crossing(zebra)"
> iD add highway=crossing crossing=zebra. upload the changeset.
>


it may work in some places, but where I map you cannot see the kind of
crossing from aerial imagery, because traffic light controlled crossings
also have zebra markings.




> iD never ask you if you known that no traffic light exist.
> so it may be an alias for crossing=uncontrolled
>


The term uncontrolled always bothered my as ill chosen, as it literally
means no traffic control, while traffic control means policemen, traffic
lights, traffic signs, road markings, i.e. the term is used against its
natural meaning.


It's why a just to move "the ground marking is a zebra" out
> the crossing key.
>


"crossing" is not about ground markings, but about the typology of the
crossing. Ground markings may play a role, but they are not required
(generally).



> With crossing_ref as currently described on the wiki,
> a mapper can fill "the ground marking is a zebra" without
> any "try to guesss if it's uncontrolled or not-filled" "meaning".
>


you can do this is you want, personally I am not interested in the kind of
markings, I only want to know what kind of crossing it is. A "zebra
crossing" for me is a crossing with zebra markings and no traffic lights
and zebra crossing traffic signs if away from a road crossing (Italian
legal definition). I.e. the road markings alone don't define a zebra
crossing (unless it is in proximity to a road crossing), vertical signs are
required.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra