Re: [Tagging] Use of crossing:island where crossings and islands are mapped separately
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 following innovations: > > 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 expect tactile_paving=* to work as documented. > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tactile_paving#Use_on_ways > > 2) removing crossing=no from highway=traffic_signals nodes where there is > either no crossing or a crossing which is mapped as a separate node. It's not > a necessary tag, but it's been used as documented in the 'How to map' section > of the wiki. I've added a sentence to the wiki for crossing=no referring to > highway=traffic_signals > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtraffic_signals#How_to_map_(new) > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:crossing=prev=2421754 > > 3) replacing traffic_signals=traffic_lights with the less-specific > traffic_signals=signal and traffic_signals=pedestrian_crossing with the > undocumented traffic_signals=crossing > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_signals > > I'm happy for my edits to be corrected when I make mistakes or misread the > wiki, which I'm sure happens more often than I imagine. However, it's rather > annoying to lose data to what appears to be an undiscussed and potentially > misguided personal project. > > On 27/09/2022 07:42, Robert Skedgell wrote: > >> 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 none exist, this does not strike me as particularly safe. >> >> This wiki appears to agree with this: >> "Do not tag a crossing with crossing:island=yes if the crossing is >> explicitly mapped as multiple separate crossings; i.e., where the traffic >> island is not part of the footway=crossing way. This is common with larger >> intersections with wide traffic islands where the traffic lane in each >> direction is mapped separately. For clarity, the stretches of >> highway=footway that form part of the traffic island can be tagged with >> footway=traffic_island. Additionally, the footway=crossing sections can >> optionally be tagged with crossing:island=no. This may be useful in case you >> are performing a survey of all crossings in an area and wish to explicitly >> mark these as having separate (or no) refuge islands." >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing:island >> >> I haven't used footway|cycleway=traffic_island on the ways crossing the >> islands, possibly because JOSM and/or Osmose (incorrectly?) complain. >> Perhaps I should? >> > > > ___ > 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] Use of crossing:island where crossings and islands are mapped separately
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 expect tactile_paving=* to work as documented. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tactile_paving#Use_on_ways That suggested restriction: not marking up a simple crossing way with tactile_paving yes/no to indicate whether the common case for the UK, that the sidewalk endpoints do or don't have that ribbed paving - requiring micro-mapping at the level of marking up the nodes on the ends instead of the way - seems... overly prescriptive to me. -- Cheers, Jeremy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Use of crossing:island where crossings and islands are mapped separately
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 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 expect tactile_paving=* to work as documented. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tactile_paving#Use_on_ways 2) removing crossing=no from highway=traffic_signals nodes where there is either no crossing or a crossing which is mapped as a separate node. It's not a necessary tag, but it's been used as documented in the 'How to map' section of the wiki. I've added a sentence to the wiki for crossing=no referring to highway=traffic_signals https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtraffic_signals#How_to_map_(new) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:crossing=prev=2421754 3) replacing traffic_signals=traffic_lights with the less-specific traffic_signals=signal and traffic_signals=pedestrian_crossing with the undocumented traffic_signals=crossing https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_signals I'm happy for my edits to be corrected when I make mistakes or misread the wiki, which I'm sure happens more often than I imagine. However, it's rather annoying to lose data to what appears to be an undiscussed and potentially misguided personal project. On 27/09/2022 07:42, Robert Skedgell wrote: 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 none exist, this does not strike me as particularly safe. This wiki appears to agree with this: "Do not tag a crossing with crossing:island=yes if the crossing is explicitly mapped as multiple separate crossings; i.e., where the traffic island is not part of the footway=crossing way. This is common with larger intersections with wide traffic islands where the traffic lane in each direction is mapped separately. For clarity, the stretches of highway=footway that form part of the traffic island can be tagged with footway=traffic_island. Additionally, the footway=crossing sections can optionally be tagged with crossing:island=no. This may be useful in case you are performing a survey of all crossings in an area and wish to explicitly mark these as having separate (or no) refuge islands." https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing:island I haven't used footway|cycleway=traffic_island on the ways crossing the islands, possibly because JOSM and/or Osmose (incorrectly?) complain. Perhaps I should? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Use of crossing:island where crossings and islands are mapped separately
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 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 exactly? - "this crossing has associated island" - "in addition to mapped geometry there is also a traffic island on this crossing" If the second, then what about crossing:island=separate? crossing:island=no seems a bit confusing to be used where crossing island exists. ___ 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] Use of crossing:island where crossings and islands are mapped separately
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 exactly? - "this crossing has associated island" - "in addition to mapped geometry there is also a traffic island on this crossing" If the second, then what about crossing:island=separate? crossing:island=no seems a bit confusing to be used where crossing island exists. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Use of crossing:island where crossings and islands are mapped separately
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 at a crossing in two ways: * By adding crossing:island=yes to the crossing node, and mapping the whole crossing from side to side with footway=crossing on the crossing way, including across the traffic island(s) * By mapping the crossing separately leaving crossing:island out (or using 'no'), and mapping the actual crossing bits with separate footway=crossing on the ways between side(s) and traffic island(s) It is my understanding that crossing:island=* only says something about the crossing way it sits on (ideally, tagged with footway=crossing), not all the crossings part of an intersection. I've started using footway=traffic_island on the highway=footway for the bits in between (the 'pedestrian refuges' or 'traffic islands'). This helps other mappers understand the crossing and prevent accidental joining of the ways. For data consumers interested in accessibility, the mapped length of the actual crossings (tagged with footway=crossing and one or more highway=crossing nodes where ways/lanes intersect) can be interesting (e.g., for routers to penalize very long crossings without traffic islands). I haven't used footway|cycleway=traffic_island on the ways crossing the islands, possibly because JOSM and/or Osmose (incorrectly?) complain. Perhaps I should? JOSM should have stopped complaining about this by now. Values for footway=* where whitelisted due to a period where values for sidewalk=* where put in footway=* instead (e.g., footway=left). This is still part of the validation, but other footway-values are now treated as user-defined, which is in line with how footway=* is used. Does Osmose complain about these? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Use of crossing:island where crossings and islands are mapped separately
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 none exist, this does not strike me as particularly safe. This wiki appears to agree with this: "Do not tag a crossing with crossing:island=yes if the crossing is explicitly mapped as multiple separate crossings; i.e., where the traffic island is not part of the footway=crossing way. This is common with larger intersections with wide traffic islands where the traffic lane in each direction is mapped separately. For clarity, the stretches of highway=footway that form part of the traffic island can be tagged with footway=traffic_island. Additionally, the footway=crossing sections can optionally be tagged with crossing:island=no. This may be useful in case you are performing a survey of all crossings in an area and wish to explicitly mark these as having separate (or no) refuge islands." https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing:island I haven't used footway|cycleway=traffic_island on the ways crossing the islands, possibly because JOSM and/or Osmose (incorrectly?) complain. Perhaps I should? -- Robert Skedgell (rskedgell) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
