Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

On 20/12/2020 08.54, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging wrote: - What should be considered a crossing? If it is unmarked, is it a crossing at all? (Should all intersections be tagged as "unmarked crossings"? Are places with traffic islands (no kerbs) where people frequently cross considered as

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 15:05, Jeremy Harris wrote: > On 20/12/2020 14:42, Paul Allen wrote: > > There may be many uncontrolled crossings (no lights, no > > zebra markings) in built-up areas, mostly at junctions. They > > typically have a dropped curb with tactile paving of a > > different

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

On 20/12/2020 14:42, Paul Allen wrote: There may be many uncontrolled crossings (no lights, no zebra markings) in built-up areas, mostly at junctions. They typically have a dropped curb with tactile paving of a different colour (does that count as markings or not?). I use crossing=unmarked

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 13:57, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > From reading all these comments, it is clear a "crossing=priority" is not > a good tag. In many places, pedestrians always have priority at > intersections even if there is no crossing. The

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

Hello everyone, I haven't really explained myself since I cancelled this proposal 7 days ago. However, just now this proposal was mentioned on WeeklyOSM, so I just want to clarify why I have cancelled this proposal. >From reading all these comments, it is clear a "crossing=priority" is not a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

sent from a phone > On 13. Dec 2020, at 21:37, stevea wrote: > > This is problematic to my thinking. In California (my state), at an > UNCONTROLLED intersection (no traffic_signal, stop sign, other traffic > control device...), for example where the sidewalk "would continue to another >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

Colin Smale het volgende geschreven: > >  >> >> On 2020-12-13 21:53, Peter Elderson wrote: >> >> Just to clarify: >> >> > crossing=priority Indicates that the node is a pedestrian crossing >> when applied to highway=cycleway, should this read bicycle crossing? >> >> when applied

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 06:37, stevea wrote: > This is problematic to my thinking. In California (my state), at an > UNCONTROLLED intersection (no traffic_signal, stop sign, other traffic > control device...), for example where the sidewalk "would continue to > another sidewalk on the other side

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

In principle a good idea. In the jurisdictions I am familiar with, any marked pedestrian crossing gives priority to pedestrians over the traffic on the crossed road. Unmarked crossing (no vertical sign, no horizontal sign) means no priority. And each country has developed their own tagging on how

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

On 2020-12-13 21:53, Peter Elderson wrote: > Just to clarify: >> crossing=priority Indicates that the node is a pedestrian crossing > when applied to highway=cycleway, should this read bicycle crossing? > > when applied to a highway=cycleway, does the tag imply priority for cyclists,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

Just to clarify: > crossing=priority Indicates that the node is a pedestrian crossing when applied to highway=cycleway, should this read bicycle crossing? when applied to a highway=cycleway, does the tag imply priority for cyclists, pedestrians, or both? > belisha_beacon=yes|no Is belisha

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

You could use "crossing:belisha_beacon" (like crossing:island etc.), but I don't think it has to be part of the proposal. In my area we started to use "crossing:kerb_extension" and "crossing:buffer_markings" this year, see here:

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

I have just commented on it in the Wiki: A crossing-proposal at the current time should go a bit further and deprecate crossing=uncontrolled. Fortunately, this value is very increasingly being replaced by more distinctive terms, especially "unmarked" or "marked" – that should be reflected in a new

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 11:26 AM ipswichmapper--- via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crossing%3Dpriority > > > Here is my first proposal for a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

This is problematic to my thinking. In California (my state), at an UNCONTROLLED intersection (no traffic_signal, stop sign, other traffic control device...), for example where the sidewalk "would continue to another sidewalk on the other side of the roadway," pedestrians ALWAYS have the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

Yes, most likely this won't be required. However I have kept it there in case it works differently in other countries. Maybe not all zebra crossings in Singapore have belisha beacons (for example, I don't know if this is true). That is why I am leaving it open for discussion for now, if after

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

It seems to be proposing also belisha_beacon=yes that is now unused https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org//search?q=belisha_beacon%3Dyes At the same time it has "However, in countries like the UK, where belisha beacons are used, every single zebra crossing has belisha beacons installed, so there is