> lame tag crossing:markings=yes which should be crossing:markings=<markings>
I can be (barely) persuaded to mark crossing:markings=yes but I do not care about these things to the point of giving specific value I guess if you consider crossing:markings=yes worse than no tagging at all then it may make sense to dismiss it > suggestion to use crossing=uncontrolled where many zebra crossings are >controlled crossings note that "crossing=uncontrolled" is not for uncontrolled crossings in their common meaning (one more reason to get rid of crossing= key altogether) Though proposal is not clear about what should be done with zebra crossings that have traffic lights. May 10, 2025, 10:42 by [email protected]: > LS > I voted against this proposal. It has merits, but also some aspects I don't > support, such as the unnecessary deprecation; the suggestion to use > crossing=uncontrolled where many zebra crossings are controlled crossings; > and the promotion of the lame tag crossing:markings=yes which should be > crossing:markings=<markings>. > It's a package deal, so if one thing is not acceptable for me, I can only > vote against the whole package. > > Peter Elderson > > > Op vr 9 mei 2025 om 23:08 schreef bauer33333--- via Tagging <> > [email protected]> >: > >> Dear mailing list, >> >> Voting has started for "Deprecate crossing=zebra in favor of >> crossing:markings". >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Deprecate_crossing%3Dzebra_in_favor_of_crossing:markings >> As there have been significant changes to the proposal since the start of >> the RFC I encourage you to read it again before voting. >> >> Bauer33333 >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
