Where there is a crossing with traffic islands, but the highways forming
the crossings and crossing the islands are mapped separately, my
assumption has been that crossing:island=no is the correct tagging.
If a visually impaired user is being told to expect additional islands
or refuges where none exist, this does not strike me as particularly safe.
This wiki appears to agree with this:
"Do not tag a crossing with crossing:island=yes if the crossing is
explicitly mapped as multiple separate crossings; i.e., where the
traffic island is not part of the footway=crossing way. This is common
with larger intersections with wide traffic islands where the traffic
lane in each direction is mapped separately. For clarity, the stretches
of highway=footway that form part of the traffic island can be tagged
with footway=traffic_island. Additionally, the footway=crossing sections
can optionally be tagged with crossing:island=no. This may be useful in
case you are performing a survey of all crossings in an area and wish to
explicitly mark these as having separate (or no) refuge islands."
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing:island
I haven't used footway|cycleway=traffic_island on the ways crossing the
islands, possibly because JOSM and/or Osmose (incorrectly?) complain.
Perhaps I should?
--
Robert Skedgell (rskedgell)
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
