Option 3 appears to be the only way to map an asl or to signify its (rather their) absence. I don't think you can tag a combined (option 1) crossing node with cycleway=asl.
It's also more consistent if nearby road junctions are mapped in detail for standalone crossings to be mapped similarly. On 10 Mar 2017 16:40, "Brian Prangle" <[email protected]> wrote: > Personally I think it's overkill > > On 10 March 2017 at 13:12, Adam Snape <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks Brian, >> >> That's what I'd observed to be the norm around here too. But, is the more >> verbose option to be encouraged because it explicitly notes the presence of >> traffic lights for road traffic (crossing=traffic_signals just means >> signals for pedestrians), or is it just unnecessary complexity (the >> presence of vehicle traffic signals could implied from the presence of >> pedestrian ones) ? >> >> Regards, >> >> Adam >> >> On 10 March 2017 at 12:55, Brian Prangle <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Adam >>> >>> I think option 1 is the consensus way to map these, certainly so in the >>> West Midlands. Option 3 is more verbose but not incorrect. Option 2 omits >>> the salient feature which is highway=crossing and so is not recommended >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Brian >>> >>> On 9 March 2017 at 12:23, Adam Snape <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> I recently noticed this changeset comment: >>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/46680980 >>>> >>>> It seems that the Wiki suggests three alternative ways of mapping a >>>> pedestrian traffic-light controlled crossing: >>>> 1. Entire crossing mapped as a node: highway >>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=crossing + crossing >>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing>=traffic_signals >>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:crossing%3Dtraffic_signals> >>>> 2. Entire crossing mapped as a node (alternative): highway >>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=*traffic_signals* + >>>> crossing <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing>= >>>> traffic_signals >>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:crossing%3Dtraffic_signals> >>>> 3. Crossing mapped separately and tagged highway >>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=crossing >>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcrossing> + crossing >>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing>=traffic_signals >>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:crossing%3Dtraffic_signals> >>>> Traffic lights tagged: highway >>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=*traffic_signals* + >>>> crossing <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing>=no + >>>> traffic_signals:direction >>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_signals:direction> >>>> =forward/backward >>>> >>>> According to the Wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.or >>>> g/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtraffic_signals), the latter is strongly >>>> recommended: >>>> >>>> Historically I've tended to use the specific UK shortcuts eg. >>>> highway=crossing crossing=pelican but I'm happy to change if the consensus >>>> is that any of the above methods are to be preferred. I've never been happy >>>> that crossings aren't rendered with a traffic light symbol but have no wish >>>> to tag for the renderer. My worry with Option 3 is that some routing >>>> programs might view it as two (or even three) separate sets of traffic >>>> lights. >>>> >>>> Any advice gratefully received, >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Talk-GB mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
