> If there is not any control of the crossing...yes otherwise should be crossing=traffic_signals or supervised=yes as you can read in the wiki.
But the meaning of "control" varies by region and municipality, and does not imply the presence or absence of ground markings. A controlled crossing can have or lack ground markings, and an uncontrolled can have or lack ground markings. > Well, in my country it is, when there is a traffic signals with pedestrian traffic signal there is a crossing=traffic_signals. Otherwise is crossing=no because there is no crossing at all. In your country, how do you map a crossing that has traffic controls but does not have markings on the ground? > Change the questions: > -Is there any traffic signal in the crossing? > -Is there any supervision in the crossing? > -Is there any mark in the crossing? I don't know what it means for a crossing to be supervised, but I do like the others you've listed. I would prefer that the crossing=* tagging schema reflect the questions you are asking, they're the right ones for pedestrians. What I'm saying is that the current OSM schema seems to ask the questions I listed, but they get described by a single value like "uncontrolled", to the confusion of all. In other words: crossing=uncontrolled implies at least 3 pieces of information. Imagine if we instead had a schema for your questions that looked something like this: crossing:traffic_signal=yes/no/* crossing:supervision=yes/no/* crossing:marking=yes/no/* (or crossing=marked/unmarked/*) That would be separating those questions out much better than the current schema and be much easier to map. > No , for a pedestrian way which passes inside an island I have footway=crossing because there si a footway inside a island. I don't need a tag which says things I can see in the situation for the map. It is the same reason I don't need crossing=marked if I have crossing=uncontrolled. Mark is not a control. While it is not as thoroughly-documented as it could be, the wiki states that crossing:island can be applied to the footway: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing:island. Specifically, "or alternatively on a pedestrian crossing way highway=footway + footway=crossing". As an example, imagine that you are a data consumer and you want to tell a pedestrian router that they are using an island. If you were to look up a crossing:island key on a given footway, you could tell them, "use a traffic island to get to <whatever>". You can, of course, also use an advanced router that extracts crossing:island from a node. > Well, we have it and it is called crossing_ref. crossing_ref is not actually a tag for noting the type of markings, nor was it intended to be. It's a dumping ground for the older UK-centric tagging schema that used zebra, toucan, pelican, etc, with those UK-specific right-of-way implications. For example, crossing_ref does not have a "ladder" key, even though that's an extremely common marking type: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/crossing_ref#values. As you can see, pretty much all of them are just "zebra". Many people from the UK get annoyed when you call a US-based ladder crossing a "zebra crossing", as our ladder crossings do not have the same right-of-way implications nor the angled markings. > I was talking about crossing=zebra issue. Ah, I see. I just misunderstood, my fault. > Tell me one situation you cannot map in detail with present tagging scheme. * Map a crossing that is unmarked and has pedestrian signals ("walk"/"do not walk"). * Map a crossing that is marked and is protected by a stop sign but no traffic light, then say how you would interpret this as a data consumer. * Map a crossing that is unmarked and is protected by a stop sign but no traffic light, then say how you would interpret this as a data consumer. * Map a crossing that is unmarked and is protected by its own, non-street-intersection traffic light, then say how you would interpret this as a data consumer. * Map a crossing that is unmarked, has pedestrian-specific signals ("walk"/"do not walk"), but no traffic signals at all nearby. * Map a crossing that has markings and is protected by a traffic light, but that traffic light is part of the overall highway=traffic_signals signalization, not specific to just that crossing. * Map an unmarked crossing that has the same type of traffic light situation: the light is to stop traffic at the intersection, not that particular crossing alone. Map an unmarked crossing that has pedestrian-specific signals ("walk"/"do not walk") and has that same "intersection-only" traffic light. * Map a marked crossing where pedestrians lack the right of way. * Map an marked crossing that has dropped curbs (keep in mind that some veteran OSM mappers have stated that dropped curbs are a control). I have no doubt that you can come up with some examples that *mostly* work. But they will be ambiguous to a data consumer and often most mappers. Best, Nick
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
