On 29/11/2022 10:01, Minh Nguyen wrote:
Vào lúc 23:01 2022-11-28, Martin Koppenhoefer đã viết:
On 29 Nov 2022, at 00:52, Minh Nguyen <[email protected]>
wrote:
Even if it weren't for iD's long-gone preset, I don't think an
ostensibly global tag should be defined based on the narrow
provisions of a specific country's laws.
I don’t think this is about a specific country, although it is not
about all countries there are many of them that apply the concept and
that seem to have decided on the feature in 1949 in an international
agreement.
No zebras were harmed in the drafting of either the 1949 Geneva Protocol
on Road Signs and Signals [1] or the 1978 Vienna Convention on Road
Signs and Signals [2]. Neither treaty mentions this species by name, but
the national laws of some parties to the Vienna Convention do define
zebra crossings.
For example, the UK requires zebra crossings to have alternating stripes
as well as belisha beacons. [3] Other countries, such as Vietnam, use
the term "zebra" specifically for the striped marking pattern
(crossing:markings=zebra), by contrast with two parallel lines
(crossing:markings=lines), but make no other provisions apart from what
any crossing would have. [4] Meanwhile, here in the U.S., which is not a
party to the convention, we walk on a distinct species of "zebra
crossing" that has slanted stripes. What was the problem with
crossing_ref=zebra again?
To add to the fun, zebra crossings in the UK do not require Belisha
beacons or a controlled area with zigzag lines when placed across a
cycle track. A give way marking of a single row of dashes is always
required. This is very common at "floating" bus stops in London.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14/made
What you seem to be suggesting is that the definition of crossing=zebra
should favor the regulations of some parties to the Vienna Convention
over other parties to the convention, let alone other countries that use
the term "zebra" to refer to something slightly different. This is
unsustainable. At one point, it might've been reasonable to justify the
use of one national definition as a historical accident, based on
squatter's rights. But since then, for better or worse, that definition
has been overwhelmed by usage that we can't characterize as cleanly.
Perhaps crossing_ref=* should have a country prefix, to remove any
possible ambiguity between GB:zebra, NL:zebra, or an equestrian crossing
with priority for the subgenus Hippotigris? :-)
Mappers benefit when they can be confident that others will look at
their tagging later on and interpret it consistent with their original
intention. Someone using crossing=zebra today shouldn't be under any
illusion that it means anything more specific than a marked crossing in
practice. In that light, crossing=zebra deserves to be given the same
deference as crossing=marked.
[1]
<https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1953/12/19531220%2000-10%20AM/Ch_XI_B_1_2_3.pdf>
[2] https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/conventn/signalse.pdf#page=7
[3]
<https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/851465/dft-traffic-signs-manual-chapter-6.pdf#page=127>
[4]
<https://luatvietnam.vn/giao-thong/quy-chuan-ky-thuat-qcvn-41-2019-bgtvt-bao-hieu-duong-bo-186000-d3.html>, p. 20; search for "vạch ngựa vằn", literally "zebra stripes"
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
