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. <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 21:55, Peter Elderson <[email protected]> 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 < > [email protected]>: > >> 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 [email protected]: >> >> 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 [email protected]: >> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crossing%3Dpriority >> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crossing%3Dpriority#Tagging> >> >> 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 >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
