> Such purely implied crossings would be crossing=unmarked, and under the "do not map local legislation" rule, I would only map them if they have a physical presence (e.g. lowered kerbs).
If we only mapped marked crossings and/or ones implied from curb ramps, then most sidewalks would be disconnected islands and everyone would be unhappy. There needs to be some tag representing the pedestrian network that spans across the street, which is what crossing=unmarked seems to be for. Maybe it's not an we need a new tag? On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 1:26 PM <osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au> wrote: > > Does any of this change in a jurisdiction where there is an implied > > crossing at every intersection unless posted otherwise? > > Such purely implied crossings would be crossing=unmarked, and under the > "do not map local legislation" rule, I would only map them if they have a > physical presence (e.g. lowered kerbs). > > > What sort of feature gets tagged crossing=no? Does one draw a line > > or node to represent the footway that isn't there? > It's a tag that should be rarely used, and it's primary purpose is if > there is a context in which people may think that there should be crossing > here, to indicated that there really isn't one. Mainly to keep armchair > mappers from later coming along and thinking "hey, someone forgot to tag > the crossing" and add some other crossing=* value. > > It's important to mention that crossing=no does NOT get a highway=crossing > tag, to prevent data consumer that only look for highway=crossing and not > interpret the crossing=* value from wrongly thinking there is a crossing > here. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
