> It is very common to see markings at traffic signal controlled crossings, but I would not see them as a requirement, and I do not think it is written anywhere that it should be.
I agree, and this is one of the criticisms I list for this tag. Every time I have made this criticism - here or with a wider OSM group - several people have chimed in to say that they've never seen a crossing with traffic signals but no markings and thought it was a moot point. There's one right now responding a bit condescendingly in another thread, in fact. > From my understanding, it seemed not interesting for most mappers to distinguish traffic light controlled markings from unmarked ones, and you will likely have a hard time to convince them (as this thread shows) to retag all crossings just because there may be exceptions or situations where it may be relevant. This is not the sole problem with the tag, so that is not a fair characterization of this proposal. There is also no part of this proposal asking anyone to remap their own past work. But I'll push back: as best I can tell from old mailing list archives and the wiki, these tags did not emerge from any attempt to map "interesting" things, let alone adequate ones for pedestrians, but were simply intended to replace the UK-specific zebra, pelican, toucan, etc tags. You can even see, "uncontrolled" morph meanings ad hoc. Finally, I get several emails per month from municipalities and civic tech groups that want to map these exact things, and I have no legitimate schema to give them. I say this because there are actually very few tagged crossings, despite the numbers or retagging seeming impressive at first glance - they will be dwarfed in short order by any real attempt to map these features. > In your example it could even be interpreted as if there were some kind of "markings" (different paving, designated pedestrian waiting area), but moving forward, the next crossing does not, so we can safely assume it is a situation that actually occurs. Hmm, I'm not seeing any markings on the ground (on the street) that distinguish the crossing location from the street at all. > I would suggest to tag the exception, i.e. the absence of crossing markings where there is a pedestrian traffic light controlled crossing, with an additional property for the crossing node. I'm not following, could you give an example? Best, Nick On Mon, May 20, 2019, 12:54 AM Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Am Mo., 20. Mai 2019 um 07:53 Uhr schrieb Nick Bolten <nbol...@gmail.com>: > >> Hello everyone, this is a late addition to this thread (I'll start a new >> one soon after I improve the proposal page), but I want to give an example >> of a crossing that has lights but no markings that is traversed by >> (guessing) thousands of people per day: >> https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=0fa511ff-b1e5-4011-b16c-d96c0c4ce8a5&cp=47.611664~-122.336542&lvl=19&dir=251.4678&pi=-22.174986&style=x&mo=z.0&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027. >> Despite having a lot of interesting art, there is no way to distinguish the >> crossing location from non-crossing locations via markings on the ground. >> >> This is topical, as crossing=traffic_signals is often claimed to imply >> crossing=marked. >> > > > It is very common to see markings at traffic signal controlled crossings, > but I would not see them as a requirement, and I do not think it is written > anywhere that it should be. From my understanding, it seemed not > interesting for most mappers to distinguish traffic light controlled > markings from unmarked ones, and you will likely have a hard time to > convince them (as this thread shows) to retag all crossings just because > there may be exceptions or situations where it may be relevant. > > In your example it could even be interpreted as if there were some kind of > "markings" (different paving, designated pedestrian waiting area), but > moving forward, the next crossing does not, so we can safely assume it is a > situation that actually occurs. > > I would suggest to tag the exception, i.e. the absence of crossing > markings where there is a pedestrian traffic light controlled crossing, > with an additional property for the crossing node. > > Cheers, > Martin > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
