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

[Matthew Woehlke]

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 crossings even though they have no 
marking & no kerbs?)


FWIW, I would say a crossing is somewhere there is a clear expectation 
that people will cross the road. For example, where a sidewalk connects 
to the curb on either side of the road but there are no markings on the 
pavement would be an unmarked crossing. I've seen these in both aerial 
imagery and in person.


To respond to Paul's point, I would tend to think of "marking" as 
referring to markings *on the road pavement*, not just on the sidewalk.


--
Matthew

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

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

[Paul Allen]

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 colour (does that count as markings or not?).
>
> I use
>
> crossing=unmarked
> tactile_paving=yes
>
> for those.
>

That's probably as good as we have, for now.  I'd go with
tactile_paving=contrasted, if appropriate.  But it doesn't cover
priority.  Until I took a close look at the rules today, I didn't
realize that if it's at a junction then pedestrians crossing
have priority over vehicles turning into the junction (but
presumably not over vehicles turning out of the junction).
No, I'm not a dangerous driver who doesn't know the rules,
I'm a dangerous pedestrian.

That priority over vehicles turning into the junction
makes life easier at an otherwise difficult crossing
near me.  Maybe.  The crossing goes across a
one-way street, so I don't have to worry about cars
turning out of the junction (there aren't any).  But
the layout of the one way system means cars
coming from one direction are forced to turn into
it, so are they really turning into it or just keeping
in lane?  https://goo.gl/maps/JCpDmKtsyZcYSkVm7

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

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

[Jeremy Harris]

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
tactile_paving=yes

for those.
--
Cheers,
  Jeremy

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

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

[Paul Allen]

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 "crossing=priority",
> however, assumed that the crossing is marked (if it gives priority). This
> is because of my experience in the UK.
>

Even in the UK it's not quite that simple.

At light-controlled crossings, vehicles must stop on red whether there are
pedestrians or not.  On flashing amber, vehicles must give way to
pedestrians but may proceed with caution if there are no pedestrians.
Even on green, vehicles must give way to pedestrians still on the
crossing (there shouldn't be any, but if there are...)

At zebra crossings, vehicles must slow down if pedestrians are
waiting to cross.  However, vehicles do not have to give way to
pedestrians until they move onto the crossing (this contrasts
with priorities in other countries where pedestrians waiting
to cross but have not yet stepped onto the crossing have priority).

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?).
Cars have priority (pedestrians must wait for a gap in
traffic) but once a pedestrian has started to cross,
the pedestrian has priority over traffic turning
into the junction.

Crossing is legal elsewhere (unlike some jurisdictions)
but pedestrians are advised to use a controlled crossing
if there is one nearby.  Pedestrians do not have
priority even when they're on the road but motorists
are required to try to avoid running over pedestrians.

There are probably cases I've missed.

Pedestrian priority isn't a simple yes/no.

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

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

[ipswichmapper--- via Tagging]

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 
>good tag. In many places, pedestrians always have priority at intersections 
>even if there is no crossing. The "crossing=priority", however, assumed that 
>the crossing is marked (if it gives priority). This is because of my 
>experience in the UK. 

Furthermore, there seems to be much bigger structural problems with the current 
"crossing" tagging scheme. Therefore, a proposal to improve crossing should be 
more detailed and make more improvements.

My proposal was hacked together in about an hour, mainly because I wanted to 
see how to create proposals, but also because I thought this was a simply issue 
with the current tagging that could quickly be fixed. 

I don't have time to create a new, more detailed crossing proposal, but if 
anyone does, here is what should be done:

- A separate tag for priority e.g. "crossing:priority=yes", where yes indicates 
those who are using the crossing have immediate priority over those who are on 
the road.
- Potentially depreciating "crossing=uncontrolled" (but this would require 
"crossing=marked" and "crossing=unmarked" to be crystal clear.
- Making it clear what "crossing=marked" means. For example, does there need to 
be marking on the road? Or is tactile paving on the sidewalk considered 
"marked"?
- add additional tags to describe more of a crossing, for example 
"crossing:belisha_beacon=*", "crossing:kerb_extension", 
"crossing:buffer_marking" etc.
(see: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Berlin/Verkehrswende/Fu%C3%9Fwege#Gehwegvorstreckung
 )
- 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 
crossings even though they have no marking & no kerbs?)

All of these things (AND MORE) need to be considered properly when creating a 
new crossing proposal. 

If anyone has the time to do something like this, that would be great.

Thanks,
IpswichMapper
-- 
 


13 Dec 2020, 19:25 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crossing%3Dpriority 
> 
>
> Here is my first proposal for a tag to describe pedestrian crossings where 
> the pedestrian has right of way over all vehicles on the road from the moment 
> they have indicated their intent to cross. I created this because 
> "crossing=zebra" or "crossing=marked" aren't clear enough. Please read the 
> proposal for more details.
>
> Thanks,
> IpswichMapper
>

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 
> sidewalk on the other side of the roadway," pedestrians ALWAYS have the 
> right-of-way (over all vehicles) when they indicate it.  How do they indicate 
> it?  By lifting one foot to step towards / into the intersection (from the 
> sidewalk).  Drivers must (by law) stop short of entering the intersection to 
> allow the pedestrian to cross, once a pedestrian has so entered the crossing 
> (even it if is unmarked or "invisible").



the same for Italy and Germany 


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

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

[Peter Elderson]

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 to a highway=cycleway, does the tag imply priority for 
>> cyclists, pedestrians, or both?
>>  
> And what happens if a cycleway crosses a footway, as happens commonly here in 
> the Netherlands?
>  
> We also have an analogous problem here where cycle tracks cross roads. In 
> many (but nowhere near all) cases the cycleway has priority

To be clear, traffic from the right has priority, unless signing indicates 
otherwise. Pedestrians have to give way, unless zebra marking indicate they 
have right of way. Dismounted cyclists count as pedestrians. Flashing bulbs 
have been banished a long time ago, in favor of (fluorescent or backlighted) 
"zebra ahead" warning signs.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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 of the roadway," pedestrians ALWAYS have
> the right-of-way (over all vehicles) when they indicate it.  How do they
> indicate it?  By lifting one foot to step towards / into the intersection
> (from the sidewalk).  Drivers must (by law) stop short of entering the
> intersection to allow the pedestrian to cross, once a pedestrian has so
> entered the crossing (even it if is unmarked or "invisible").
>

Australia goes even a bit further in that pedestrians always have
right-of-way, regardless of crossings (marked or unmarked) or not.

https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/stayingsafe/pedestrians/needtoknow/index.html

" Drivers must give way to pedestrians crossing the road into which their
vehicles are turning. You must also give way to pedestrians if there is a
danger of colliding with them, even if there is no marked pedestrian
crossing.

Thanks

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

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

[Volker Schmidt]

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 to to map them in
OSM, and sometimes more than one,.
But the priority rules are more complex than you ay be aware of, when it
comes to cyclists crossing as well, which is a common situation.

Specifically in Italy we do have a strange situation, that cannot be
tackled with any tagging, unless you tag 0nly the the signage, but not
their meaning.
On normal pedestrian crossings cyclists riding their bike have no priority,
they need to dismount and push their bike, as pedestrians, to have the
priority.
On explicitly marked bicycle-only crossings or  bicycle-plus-foot crossings
they have the priority without dismounting.
So far so good
If a pedestrian-only crossing is painted and signposted to connect two
mixed foot-cycle-paths, cyclists have the priority even if the road signs
do not  show it (and it is ìonly based on some legal cases, but i tis not
written in the Highway Code.
The solution is to map what is on the ground, i.e. the signing, but leaving
the interpretation of the signing to the road user. .

In addition we have another area of uncertainty, i.e. the cases when
footways meet cycleways.As far as I know there are simply no rules for that
case.




Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 21:55, 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, pedestrians, or both?
>
> > belisha_beacon=yes|no
> Is belisha beacon a generally known term outside the UK?
> Since only presence is significant,  the value no is useless
>
> > segregated=boolean (yes/no) (no default assumed)
>
> Since the proposal talks about pedestrians, cycleways and horses crossing:
> what exactly is segregated when segregated=yes is applied to a cycleway?
> And with segregated=no, do motorists get a warning that horses may cross on
> the cycleway?
>
>
> Peter Elderson
>
>
> Op zo 13 dec. 2020 om 21:08 schreef ipswichmapper--- via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
>
>> 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
>> the RFC it is decided that this is a bad idea I'll remove it.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> IpswichMapper
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> 13 Dec 2020, 19:50 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:
>>
>> 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 no need
>> to tag them"
>>
>> There is also
>> "Indicates the presence of a "belisha beacon" at the crossing. (Most
>> likely unnecessary, discuss below)"
>>
>> Given there is no indication that it would be useful or needed I think
>> that it should be not proposed.
>>
>> If that it would be useful or needed it can be proposed separately.
>>
>> Note that having two proposals in one will result in people voting against
>> if there are against any of them, so splitting would be a good idea
>> anyway.
>>
>> Dec 13, 2020, 20:25 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crossing%3Dpriority
>> 
>>
>> Here is my first proposal for a tag to describe pedestrian crossings
>> where the pedestrian has right of way over all vehicles on the road from
>> the moment they have indicated their intent to cross. I created this
>> because "crossing=zebra" or "crossing=marked" aren't clear enough. Please
>> read the proposal for more details.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> IpswichMapper
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

[Colin Smale]

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, 
> pedestrians, or both?

And what happens if a cycleway crosses a footway, as happens commonly
here in the Netherlands? 

We also have an analogous problem here where cycle tracks cross roads.
In many (but nowhere near all) cases the cycleway has priority.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Peter Elderson]

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 beacon a generally known term outside the UK?
Since only presence is significant,  the value no is useless

> segregated=boolean (yes/no) (no default assumed)

Since the proposal talks about pedestrians, cycleways and horses crossing:
what exactly is segregated when segregated=yes is applied to a cycleway?
And with segregated=no, do motorists get a warning that horses may cross on
the cycleway?


Peter Elderson


Op zo 13 dec. 2020 om 21:08 schreef ipswichmapper--- via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

> 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
> the RFC it is decided that this is a bad idea I'll remove it.
>
> Thanks,
> IpswichMapper
>
> --
>
>
> 13 Dec 2020, 19:50 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:
>
> 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 no need
> to tag them"
>
> There is also
> "Indicates the presence of a "belisha beacon" at the crossing. (Most
> likely unnecessary, discuss below)"
>
> Given there is no indication that it would be useful or needed I think
> that it should be not proposed.
>
> If that it would be useful or needed it can be proposed separately.
>
> Note that having two proposals in one will result in people voting against
> if there are against any of them, so splitting would be a good idea
> anyway.
>
> Dec 13, 2020, 20:25 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crossing%3Dpriority
> 
>
> Here is my first proposal for a tag to describe pedestrian crossings where
> the pedestrian has right of way over all vehicles on the road from the
> moment they have indicated their intent to cross. I created this because
> "crossing=zebra" or "crossing=marked" aren't clear enough. Please read the
> proposal for more details.
>
> Thanks,
> IpswichMapper
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

[Alex]

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:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Berlin/Verkehrswende/Fu%C3%9Fwege#Gehwegvorstreckung
(still under development and unfortunately only in German language at
the moment)


Am 13.12.20 um 21:06 schrieb ipswichmapper--- via Tagging:
> 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 the RFC it 
> is decided that this is a bad idea I'll remove it.
>
> Thanks,
> IpswichMapper
> -- 
>
> 13 Dec 2020, 19:50 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:
>
>> 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 no need to 
>> tag them"
>>
>> There is also
>> "Indicates the presence of a "belisha beacon" at the crossing. (Most likely 
>> unnecessary, discuss below)"
>>
>> Given there is no indication that it would be useful or needed I think
>> that it should be not proposed.
>>
>> If that it would be useful or needed it can be proposed separately.
>>
>> Note that having two proposals in one will result in people voting against
>> if there are against any of them, so splitting would be a good idea
>> anyway.
>>
>> Dec 13, 2020, 20:25 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:
>>
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crossing%3Dpriority 
>>> 
>>>
>>> Here is my first proposal for a tag to describe pedestrian crossings where 
>>> the pedestrian has right of way over all vehicles on the road from the 
>>> moment they have indicated their intent to cross. I created this because 
>>> "crossing=zebra" or "crossing=marked" aren't clear enough. Please read the 
>>> proposal for more details.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> IpswichMapper
>>>
>>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

[Alex]

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 proposal (see chronologies
for different values like
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/crossing=unmarked#chronology).

greetings
Alex


Am 13.12.20 um 20:25 schrieb ipswichmapper--- via Tagging:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crossing%3Dpriority 
> 
>
> Here is my first proposal for a tag to describe pedestrian crossings where 
> the pedestrian has right of way over all vehicles on the road from the moment 
> they have indicated their intent to cross. I created this because 
> "crossing=zebra" or "crossing=marked" aren't clear enough. Please read the 
> proposal for more details.
>
> Thanks,
> IpswichMapper
>
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

[Clifford Snow]

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 tag to describe pedestrian crossings where
> the pedestrian has right of way over all vehicles on the road from the
> moment they have indicated their intent to cross. I created this because
> "crossing=zebra" or "crossing=marked" aren't clear enough. Please read the
> proposal for more details.
>

In a number of places that I've lived or visited, marked crossings (zebra
or others) indicate the pedestrian has the right-of-way.  For example,
where I live now, Washington State, it's the law that pedestrians have
righ-of-way in a marked crosswalk. In all those many places adding the tag
crossing=priority would be redundant. It would also effectively do away
with crossing=marked which has over 1M uses[1]. Many of us were very happy
when crossing=marked was added because zebra didn't exactly fit. What
crossing=marked does is give the ability to easily verify what's
literally on the ground, even visible from good aerial imagery.

If you believe that we need a priority tag, then I suggest creating one
that doesn't effectively depreciate crossing=marked. I'd also suggest
explaining how a mappers is expected to know if the pedestrian has
priority.

[1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/crossing#values

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[stevea]

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 right-of-way 
(over all vehicles) when they indicate it.  How do they indicate it?  By 
lifting one foot to step towards / into the intersection (from the sidewalk).  
Drivers must (by law) stop short of entering the intersection to allow the 
pedestrian to cross, once a pedestrian has so entered the crossing (even it if 
is unmarked or "invisible").

So, whatever proposal you come up with might properly need to be applied to 
every uncontrolled intersection (in California, and potentially many other 
places).  I ask you to keep this in mind as you craft the proposal.  As it is 
now, your proposal contradicts a fact now widespread here (and I expect more 
widely in the USA):  should it be approved, crossing=uncontrolled will describe 
crossings where VEHICLES have right-of-way.  That would break a lot of 
intersections so tagged today, making true exactly the opposite semantic on 
them, contradicting their existing meaning in our map.

Maybe I (we) should be discussing this in the proposal's Talk page rather than 
in this mail-list, I don't know.

SteveA

> On Dec 13, 2020, at 11:25 AM, ipswichmapper--- via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crossing%3Dpriority
> 
> Here is my first proposal for a tag to describe pedestrian crossings where 
> the pedestrian has right of way over all vehicles on the road from the moment 
> they have indicated their intent to cross. I created this because 
> "crossing=zebra" or "crossing=marked" aren't clear enough. Please read the 
> proposal for more details.
> 
> Thanks,
> IpswichMapper
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

[ipswichmapper--- via Tagging]

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 the RFC it is 
decided that this is a bad idea I'll remove it.

Thanks,
IpswichMapper
-- 

13 Dec 2020, 19:50 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

> 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 no need to 
> tag them"
>
> There is also
> "Indicates the presence of a "belisha beacon" at the crossing. (Most likely 
> unnecessary, discuss below)"
>
> Given there is no indication that it would be useful or needed I think
> that it should be not proposed.
>
> If that it would be useful or needed it can be proposed separately.
>
> Note that having two proposals in one will result in people voting against
> if there are against any of them, so splitting would be a good idea
> anyway.
>
> Dec 13, 2020, 20:25 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:
>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crossing%3Dpriority 
>> 
>>
>> Here is my first proposal for a tag to describe pedestrian crossings where 
>> the pedestrian has right of way over all vehicles on the road from the 
>> moment they have indicated their intent to cross. I created this because 
>> "crossing=zebra" or "crossing=marked" aren't clear enough. Please read the 
>> proposal for more details.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> IpswichMapper
>>
>
>

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

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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 no need to tag 
them"

There is also
"Indicates the presence of a "belisha beacon" at the crossing. (Most likely 
unnecessary, discuss below)"

Given there is no indication that it would be useful or needed I think
that it should be not proposed.

If that it would be useful or needed it can be proposed separately.

Note that having two proposals in one will result in people voting against
if there are against any of them, so splitting would be a good idea
anyway.

Dec 13, 2020, 20:25 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crossing%3Dpriority 
> 
>
> Here is my first proposal for a tag to describe pedestrian crossings where 
> the pedestrian has right of way over all vehicles on the road from the moment 
> they have indicated their intent to cross. I created this because 
> "crossing=zebra" or "crossing=marked" aren't clear enough. Please read the 
> proposal for more details.
>
> Thanks,
> IpswichMapper
>

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