On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 06:53, Nick Bolten <[email protected]> wrote: > > This is topical, as crossing=traffic_signals is often claimed to imply > crossing=marked. >
It is? I hadn't noticed. I take a very different view, that crossing=traffic_signals says that the crossing is controlled by traffic signals. There may or may not be markings. Those markings may or may not be similar to markings at crossings without traffic signals but, if the lights are functioning those markings have no legal significance and do not determine rights of way. I, like some others here, think it rather obsessive of you to insist on mapping what we consider to be an irrelevancy. The crossing is CONTROLLED by the lights and that is the important factor. Sure, if you can come up with something that isn't disruptive and has other benefits, then it MAY be worth coming up with a tagging scheme that allows us to indicate whether a crossing controlled by lights also has markings. At best, all I've seen indicates that maybe editors should make it clearer to mappers if they change a crossing tagged as traffic signals to one with markings that perhaps they're using aerial imagery to undo what somebody has verified on the ground. I don't deny that such edits may be a problem, I'm not convinced your proposal is the best solution. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
