Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?
Hello, Le 10.06.20 à 04:03, Jack Armstrong a écrit : > Users have been adding pedestrian crossing tags on ways I don't see 2 crossing. I only see 1 crossing https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7598863281 between a footway https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/813492687 and a tertiary road https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/558176641 Regards, Marc ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?
From: Clifford Snow Jack - can you live with Martin's point? Actually, I'm very flexible with just about anything. My only goal in bringing this up was to clean up the wiki page so that mappers have clear guidance. The way the wiki was written seemed confusing. After I brought up the subject I learned about the sidewalk proposal from 2011 and it seemed the proposal and the wiki were clearly at odds. I don't feel strongly either way about it. Again, I'd just like to see the proposal, the wiki and the OSM community agree on something that mappers can use as a common guideline. I'm easy.Cheers :) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?
Jun 11, 2020, 01:10 by ja...@piorkowski.ca: > On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 14:27, Clifford Snow wrote: > >> To help me understand, below are three schemes for crossings. Which one(s) >> best describe your suggested way of mapping. >> >> ... >> 2. With no crossing ways, just a node on the highway to mark the type of >> crossing https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/4ad5wLzMNcE3sNo >> > > Mateusz has already pointed this out, but just to reinforce, this > scheme would break pedestrian routing and require a wholesale rewrite > of all routers to be able to jump between nearby ways. > And that rewrite would introduce unfixable routing bugs in cases where nearby footways are not allowing pedestrain movement. Also, that rewrite would be quite hard to implement without cratering performance. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?
On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 14:27, Clifford Snow wrote: > To help me understand, below are three schemes for crossings. Which one(s) > best describe your suggested way of mapping. > > ... > 2. With no crossing ways, just a node on the highway to mark the type of > crossing https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/4ad5wLzMNcE3sNo Mateusz has already pointed this out, but just to reinforce, this scheme would break pedestrian routing and require a wholesale rewrite of all routers to be able to jump between nearby ways. An analogy would be having a break in a minor road where it intersects the roadway of a major road. --Jarek ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?
Às 19:29 de 10/06/2020, Graeme Fitzpatrick escreveu: On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 06:30, Clifford Snow mailto:cliff...@snowandsnow.us>> wrote: Sorry - I should have been clearer on #3. The red dot is a validation warning that the two ways intersect, but it isn't marked as a crossing. (Not having a go at you, Clifford, just using your comment as an example! :-)) "Recently" (2019?), iD has also started pointing out / suggesting / demanding that all crossings (be they road - footway, driveway - footway, footway - footway / cycleway, road - road etc) eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-28.08457/153.44892 (if the "error" doesn't show, please click on either side of Second Avenue), also be marked as a crossing. When you go ahead & "fix" it, it inserts a highway=crossing at that point: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=21/-28.07834/153.44686. Good luck with telling them they're "wrong"! Thanks Graeme That's an obvious error. The ways must cross somewhere (that's what the warning states) , but it doesn't tell you to add a crossing. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 06:30, Clifford Snow wrote: > > > Sorry - I should have been clearer on #3. The red dot is a validation > warning that the two ways intersect, but it isn't marked as a crossing. > (Not having a go at you, Clifford, just using your comment as an example! :-)) "Recently" (2019?), iD has also started pointing out / suggesting / demanding that all crossings (be they road - footway, driveway - footway, footway - footway / cycleway, road - road etc) eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-28.08457/153.44892 (if the "error" doesn't show, please click on either side of Second Avenue), also be marked as a crossing. When you go ahead & "fix" it, it inserts a highway=crossing at that point: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=21/-28.07834/153.44686. Good luck with telling them they're "wrong"! Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?
Jack - can you live with Martin's point? On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 2:36 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 10. Jun 2020, at 23:28, Clifford Snow > wrote: > > > > I would suggest that the one feature per element page needs to include a > couple of exceptions to the rule. > > > the rule is mostly pointless, because it depends what you define as a > feature. In the crossing example there is no infraction of the rule: > there is one feature which is a pedestrian crossing (footway of type > crossing) and there is a crossing node where a crossing footway crosses the > highway way (different feature). > > Cheers Martin > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- @osm_washington www.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?
sent from a phone > On 10. Jun 2020, at 23:28, Clifford Snow wrote: > > I would suggest that the one feature per element page needs to include a > couple of exceptions to the rule. the rule is mostly pointless, because it depends what you define as a feature. In the crossing example there is no infraction of the rule: there is one feature which is a pedestrian crossing (footway of type crossing) and there is a crossing node where a crossing footway crosses the highway way (different feature). Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 1:55 PM Jack Armstrong wrote: > > From: Clifford Snow > > If we were to follow your logic, then every level crossing at the > intersection of railways and highways should not be tagged as a > level_crossing because of the rule "one feature, one OSM element." > > > Well, again, my personal preferences are not germane to this thread. I'm > not shy about expressing my opinions, it's just I'm not trying to politic > for a certain style of mapping in this case. > > In this matter, whichever method of mapping that is decided upon by the > OSM community is fine with me. I'm simply concerned with the wiki page > meshing with the approved sidewalk proposal. I'm not in favor of the > approved proposal from 2011 nor am I against it. I'm simply keen to have > the wiki and the proposal mesh correctly. My personal preferences are not > relevant to a decision made back in 2011. I am not proposing any changes > other than having the wiki and the 2011 proposal mesh accurately. > > Reading the wiki page on one feature per OSM element, it starts off with > *Ideally, every OSM element or object should be tagged with only one main feature tag, to represent a single on-the-ground feature.* I read this as there are exceptions. Unfortunately when this was written, sidewalks as separate ways weren't even thought of. However at the time of the writing of the wiki, level_crossings were. Looking at the discussion history, this issue never came up. Please note that I didn't go back to look at the mailing list conversation. Clearly level crossings tag would appear to violate the policy. I'm happy to read that ideally there should be one main feature tag to describe a feature but there are exceptions. I would suggest that the one feature per element page needs to include a couple of exceptions to the rule. Best, Clifford -- @osm_washington www.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?
Jun 10, 2020, 23:17 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > > >> On 10. Jun 2020, at 18:19, Clifford Snow wrote: >> >> Before changing the wiki, I'd like a clearer understanding of your proposed >> change. >> > > > this sentence was only introduced recently, it is not backed by history, > current usage or the people in this thread here. Just remove it... > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ahighway%3Dcrossing&type=revision&diff=1950634&oldid=1941458 > Reverted. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?
sent from a phone > On 10. Jun 2020, at 18:19, Clifford Snow wrote: > > Before changing the wiki, I'd like a clearer understanding of your proposed > change. this sentence was only introduced recently, it is not backed by history, current usage or the people in this thread here. Just remove it... https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ahighway%3Dcrossing&type=revision&diff=1950634&oldid=1941458 Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?
sent from a phone > On 10. Jun 2020, at 20:28, Clifford Snow wrote: > > 1. Tagging both the crossing and a node on the highway. > https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/YEFoYcTgR2gtW3j > 2. With no crossing ways, just a node on the highway to mark the type of > crossing https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/4ad5wLzMNcE3sNo > 3. With just crossing ways and no node at the intersection of the crossing > and highway. https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/tHF62pH5txPEX55 1 is the scheme when it is a dual carriageway or there is at least one explicit sidewalk (or cycleway in case of bike crossing) mapped 2 if you do not have to connect other things 3 is incomplete and you may expect that routing software for cars might not become aware of the crossing, and the type of crossing (markings, lights, etc) Of course you could find out with solution 3 that there is a crossing node, but as the docs always said that there’s the tags on the node, they are set up to not do it (i.e. they can build their graph without footways). In preprocessing these tags could be automatically set on the node (provided the kind of crossing would be given on the crossing way, otherwise that there is a crossing). Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?
From: Clifford Snow If we were to follow your logic, then every level crossing at the intersection of railways and highways should not be tagged as a level_crossing because of the rule "one feature, one OSM element." Well, again, my personal preferences are not germane to this thread. I'm not shy about expressing my opinions, it's just I'm not trying to politic for a certain style of mapping in this case. In this matter, whichever method of mapping that is decided upon by the OSM community is fine with me. I'm simply concerned with the wiki page meshing with the approved sidewalk proposal. I'm not in favor of the approved proposal from 2011 nor am I against it. I'm simply keen to have the wiki and the proposal mesh correctly. My personal preferences are not relevant to a decision made back in 2011. I am not proposing any changes other than having the wiki and the 2011 proposal mesh accurately.Cheers :) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?
Às 17:16 de 10/06/2020, Jack Armstrong escreveu: From: Clifford Snow To help me understand, below are three schemes for crossings. Which one(s) best describe your suggested way of mapping. 1. Tagging both the crossing and a node on the highway. https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/YEFoYcTgR2gtW3j 2. With no crossing ways, just a node on the highway to mark the type of crossing https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/4ad5wLzMNcE3sNo 3. With just crossing ways and no node at the intersection of the crossing and highway. https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/tHF62pH5txPEX55 Well, since you asked, as to my own personal preference, #1 is not my preference. Crossing tags are placed on the way and on a node for a single pedestrian crosswalk. I feel this violates OSM's "one feature, one OSM element" rule. #2 seems acceptable, but it's not my personal preference. (Again, I started this thread not in order to express my preferences, simply to have the wiki compliant with approved OSM canon) #3 has no connecting node between the two ways represented by the red dot? This would not be correct. There should be a connecting node. This is an example of how I prefer to map pedestrian crossings (this is common throughout downtown Denver): https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=21/39.72565/-104.98501 Here are two methods I mapped as a demonstration of mapping that I feel is correct, as well. Mapped here are two different methods that seem reasonable, tagging either the connecting node or tagging the way; but not tagging both the node and the way. Tagging both the node and the way would seem to violate the "one feature, one OSM element" rule. https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=21/39.71293/-104.98038 Cheers Jack Armstrong (chachafish) Using footway=sidewalk on a highway crossing is not a legit way of mapping this. You can not substitute something that seems wrong for a certainly wrong tag. I understand your issue, as I always had the same problem about footway=crossing, and that's why I only use it when creating routable ways for pedestrians, but unless you can convince routing software to recognize a highway=crossing point as a crossover to pedestrians (with out a line) I don't see how this can be undone. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 1:16 PM Jack Armstrong wrote: > From: Clifford Snow > To help me understand, below are three schemes for crossings. Which one(s) > best describe your suggested way of mapping. > > 1. Tagging both the crossing and a node on the highway. > https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/YEFoYcTgR2gtW3j > 2. With no crossing ways, just a node on the highway to mark the type of > crossing https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/4ad5wLzMNcE3sNo > 3. With just crossing ways and no node at the intersection of the crossing > and highway. https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/tHF62pH5txPEX55 > > > Well, since you asked, as to my own personal preference, > > #1 is not my preference. Crossing tags are placed on the way and on a node > for a single pedestrian crosswalk. I feel this violates OSM's "one feature, > one OSM element" rule. > #2 seems acceptable, but it's not my personal preference. (Again, I > started this thread not in order to express my preferences, simply to have > the wiki compliant with approved OSM canon) > #3 has no connecting node between the two ways represented by the red dot? > This would not be correct. There should be a connecting node. > > Sorry - I should have been clearer on #3. The red dot is a validation warning that the two ways intersect, but it isn't marked as a crossing. If we were to follow your logic, then every level crossing at the intersection of railways and highways should not be tagged as a level_crossing because of the rule "one feature, one OSM element." Best, Clifford -- @osm_washington www.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?
From: Clifford Snow To help me understand, below are three schemes for crossings. Which one(s) best describe your suggested way of mapping.1. Tagging both the crossing and a node on the highway. https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/YEFoYcTgR2gtW3j2. With no crossing ways, just a node on the highway to mark the type of crossing https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/4ad5wLzMNcE3sNo3. With just crossing ways and no node at the intersection of the crossing and highway. https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/tHF62pH5txPEX55Well, since you asked, as to my own personal preference, #1 is not my preference. Crossing tags are placed on the way and on a node for a single pedestrian crosswalk. I feel this violates OSM's "one feature, one OSM element" rule.#2 seems acceptable, but it's not my personal preference. (Again, I started this thread not in order to express my preferences, simply to have the wiki compliant with approved OSM canon)#3 has no connecting node between the two ways represented by the red dot? This would not be correct. There should be a connecting node.This is an example of how I prefer to map pedestrian crossings (this is common throughout downtown Denver):https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=21/39.72565/-104.98501Here are two methods I mapped as a demonstration of mapping that I feel is correct, as well. Mapped here are two different methods that seem reasonable, tagging either the connecting node or tagging the way; but not tagging both the node and the way. Tagging both the node and the way would seem to violate the "one feature, one OSM element" rule.https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=21/39.71293/-104.98038CheersJack Armstrong(chachafish) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?
FWIW, as the originating party for the “sidewalk as separate way” proposal, we have actually been mapping and tagging both the pedestrian crossing line geometry as well as the intersecting node geometry with the crossing demarcation. Moreover, we highly recommend using the tag Crossing= exclusively for marked/unmarked tagging. The crossing=controlled tag should really be deprecated due to ambiguity in different locales and the fact that controlled isn’t mutually exclusive of the marked/unmarked designation. I believe both of the pages pointed to by Jack should be amended to clarify these points. Best regards, Anat @OpenSidewalks Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. > On Jun 10, 2020, at 11:26 AM, Clifford Snow wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:59 AM Jack Armstrong >> wrote: >> > From: Clifford Snow >> >> > Before changing the wiki, I'd like a clearer understanding of your >> > proposed change. As I read this the node is placed on the highway to tell >> > cars that some type of crossing is located at this node. The crossing way >> > tells the pedestrian that there is some type of crossing. With thousands >> > of crossings already mapped, your proposed change could break routers. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Well, I don’t really want to change anything. I’d just like the wiki to be >> consistent with OSM canon. I would have the wiki reflect the approved >> "Sidewalk as a separate way" 2011 proposal. Essentially, the wiki’s “How to >> Map” section would have added clarity; >> >> >> >> To be added to the wiki (from the approved proposal): >> >> >> >> When a highway=crossing node is present on the main road, a way connecting >> the sidewalks on the two sides of the road should be mapped. This way should >> be tagged as follows: >> >> highway=footway >> >> footway=crossing >> >> >> >> To be deleted from the wiki: >> >> >> >> footway=crossing and cycleway=crossing are sometimes used on ways which lead >> from a sidewalk to the crossing node (the node which has this >> highway=crossing tag). This is not the preferred way of tagging. >> >> >> >> On a personal note, I don’t want to map one element twice (once on the way >> and once on the node - for a single crossing), but the approved proposal >> contradicts my personal method of mapping. I feel that the tagged node tells >> both vehicles and pedestrians this is a crossing, but the wiki should be >> consistent with what is approved by the OSM community. >> > To help me understand, below are three schemes for crossings. Which one(s) > best describe your suggested way of mapping. > > 1. Tagging both the crossing and a node on the highway. > https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/YEFoYcTgR2gtW3j > 2. With no crossing ways, just a node on the highway to mark the type of > crossing https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/4ad5wLzMNcE3sNo > 3. With just crossing ways and no node at the intersection of the crossing > and highway. https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/tHF62pH5txPEX55 > > Best, > Clifford > > > -- > @osm_washington > www.snowandsnow.us > OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?
Jun 10, 2020, 19:59 by jacknst...@sprynet.com: > > To be added to the wiki (from the approved proposal): > > > > > > When a highway=crossing node is present on the main road, a way connecting > the sidewalks on the two sides of the road should be mapped. This way should > be tagged as follows: > > > highway=footway > > > footway=crossing > > > > > > To be deleted from the wiki: > > > > > > footway=crossing and cycleway=crossing are sometimes used on ways which lead > from a sidewalk to the crossing node (the node which has this > highway=crossing tag). This is not the preferred way of tagging. > > > > > > On a personal note, I don’t want to map one element twice (once on the way > and once on the node - for a single crossing), but the approved proposal > contradicts my personal method of mapping. I feel that the tagged node tells > both vehicles and pedestrians this is a crossing, but the wiki should be > consistent with what is approved by the OSM community. > > I edited https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcrossing#How_to_map a bit in attempt to clarify that this additional way applies only in cases of separately mapped sidewalks. "This is not the preferred way of tagging." was left and I support its removal. I oppose "This way should be tagged as follows: highway=footway", it should be also mentioned that "highway=path + footway=sidewalk" may be correct (in case of bicycle=designated foot=designated) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?
Jun 10, 2020, 20:26 by cliff...@snowandsnow.us: > To help me understand, below are three schemes for crossings. Which one(s) > best describe your suggested way of mapping. > > 1. Tagging both the crossing and a node on the highway. > > https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/YEFoYcTgR2gtW3j > 2. With no crossing ways, just a node on the highway to mark the type of > crossing > https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/4ad5wLzMNcE3sNo > 3. With just crossing ways and no node at the intersection of the crossing > and highway. > https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/tHF62pH5txPEX55 > In case of separately mapped sidewalks (2) is completely and horribly wrong, as footway geometry is broken. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:59 AM Jack Armstrong wrote: > > From: Clifford Snow > > > Before changing the wiki, I'd like a clearer understanding of your > proposed change. As I read this the node is placed on the highway to tell > cars that some type of crossing is located at this node. The crossing way > tells the pedestrian that there is some type of crossing. With thousands > of crossings already mapped, your proposed change could break routers. > > > > > Well, I don’t really want to change anything. I’d just like the wiki to be > consistent with OSM canon. I would have the wiki reflect the approved > "Sidewalk as a separate way" 2011 proposal. Essentially, the wiki’s “How to > Map” section would have added clarity; > > > To be added to the wiki (from the approved proposal): > > > When a highway=crossing node is present on the main road, a way connecting > the sidewalks on the two sides of the road should be mapped. This way > should be tagged as follows: > > highway=footway > > footway=crossing > > > To be deleted from the wiki: > > > footway=crossing and cycleway=crossing are sometimes used on ways which > lead from a sidewalk to the crossing node (the node which has this > highway=crossing tag). This is not the preferred way of tagging. > > > On a personal note, I don’t want to map one element twice (once on the way > and once on the node - for a single crossing), but the approved proposal > contradicts my personal method of mapping. I feel that the tagged node > tells both vehicles and pedestrians this is a crossing, but the wiki should > be consistent with what is approved by the OSM community. > To help me understand, below are three schemes for crossings. Which one(s) best describe your suggested way of mapping. 1. Tagging both the crossing and a node on the highway. https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/YEFoYcTgR2gtW3j 2. With no crossing ways, just a node on the highway to mark the type of crossing https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/4ad5wLzMNcE3sNo 3. With just crossing ways and no node at the intersection of the crossing and highway. https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/tHF62pH5txPEX55 Best, Clifford -- @osm_washington www.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?
> From: Clifford Snow> Before changing the wiki, I'd like a clearer understanding of your proposed change. As I read this the node is placed on the highway to tell cars that some type of crossing is located at this node. The crossing way tells the pedestrian that there is some type of crossing. With thousands of crossings already mapped, your proposed change could break routers. Well, I don’t really want to change anything. I’d just like the wiki to be consistent with OSM canon. I would have the wiki reflect the approved "Sidewalk as a separate way" 2011 proposal. Essentially, the wiki’s “How to Map” section would have added clarity; To be added to the wiki (from the approved proposal):When a highway=crossing node is present on the main road, a way connecting the sidewalks on the two sides of the road should be mapped. This way should be tagged as follows:highway=footwayfootway=crossingTo be deleted from the wiki:footway=crossing and cycleway=crossing are sometimes used on ways which lead from a sidewalk to the crossing node (the node which has this highway=crossing tag). This is not the preferred way of tagging.On a personal note, I don’t want to map one element twice (once on the way and once on the node - for a single crossing), but the approved proposal contradicts my personal method of mapping. I feel that the tagged node tells both vehicles and pedestrians this is a crossing, but the wiki should be consistent with what is approved by the OSM community. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?
On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 17:45, Jack Armstrong wrote: > To map a pedestrian crossing, place a node within the way representing > the road, and set this highway=crossing tag on the node… > footway=crossing and cycleway=crossing are sometimes used on ways which > lead from a sidewalk to the crossing node (the node which has this > highway=crossing tag). *This is not the preferred way of tagging.* > The sentence in bold has only recently been added. I have already written to the author asking for the basis of this change. I am waiting for an answer. If none will come that needs reverting. Volker ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 8:44 AM Jack Armstrong wrote: > Thank you, Andrew, > > According to the "Sidewalk as a separate way" proposal, which was approved > in 2011, > > When a highway=crossing node is present on the main road, a way connecting > the sidewalks on the two sides of the road should be mapped. Not to > override the well-established meaning of highway=crossing, this way should > be tagged as follows: > highway=footway > footway=crossing > > However, the OSM wiki “tag:highway=crossing” directly contradicts this; > > To map a pedestrian crossing, place a node within the way representing the > road, and set this highway=crossing tag on the node… > footway=crossing and cycleway=crossing are sometimes used on ways which > lead from a sidewalk to the crossing node (the node which has this > highway=crossing tag). *This is not the preferred way of tagging.* > > Is this a simple case of information not being transferred from the > approved proposal to the wiki? > > I have no preference on how a pedestrian crossing is mapped, but I am keen > for the wiki to reflect accurate information. If we are following the > approved proposal "Sidewalk as a separate way”, does anyone have objection > to the wiki being changed to reflect this? > Before changing the wiki, I'd like a clearer understanding of your proposed change. As I read this the node is placed on the highway to tell cars that some type of crossing is located at this node. The crossing way tells the pedestrian that there is some type of crossing. With thousands of crossings already mapped, your proposed change could break routers. Best, Clifford -- @osm_washington www.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?
I agree that the wiki should be consistent on the use of these two ways of mapping a highway crossing. Personally, I always use highway=crossing on nodes and only footway=crossing when I can connect the point to a pedestrian feature for routing purposes. Às 12:44 de 10/06/2020, Jack Armstrong escreveu: Thank you, Andrew, According to the "Sidewalk as a separate way" proposal, which was approved in 2011, When a highway=crossing node is present on the main road, a way connecting the sidewalks on the two sides of the road should be mapped. Not to override the well-established meaning of highway=crossing, this way should be tagged as follows: highway=footway footway=crossing However, the OSM wiki “tag:highway=crossing” directly contradicts this; To map a pedestrian crossing, place a node within the way representing the road, and set this highway=crossing tag on the node… footway=crossing and cycleway=crossing are sometimes used on ways which lead from a sidewalk to the crossing node (the node which has this highway=crossing tag). *This is not the preferred way of tagging.* Is this a simple case of information not being transferred from the approved proposal to the wiki? I have no preference on how a pedestrian crossing is mapped, but I am keen for the wiki to reflect accurate information. If we are following the approved proposal "Sidewalk as a separate way”, does anyone have objection to the wiki being changed to reflect this? Cheers -Original Message- From: Jack Armstrong Sent: Jun 9, 2020 8:03 PM To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Do we map pedestrian crossings twice? Apologies if this has already been discussed. I searched the tagging list, but couldn’t find it. Users have been adding pedestrian crossing tags on ways in addition to the street connecting nodes. In effect, a single pedestrian crossing is tagged twice. To me, this would seem contrary not only to the OSM wiki page, “Tag:highway=crossing”, but also contrary to, “One feature, one OSM element”. Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=86290585#map=20/39.63167/-104.89726 I’ve been told by a user, anecdotally, there’s a Slack group that decided this is correct. To my knowledge Slack groups do not supersede the OSM wiki. I assume mapping a crossing twice is incorrect? OSM wiki: tag:highway=crossing https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcrossing - Jack Armstrong www.theaveragenomad.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?
Thank you, Andrew,According to the "Sidewalk as a separate way" proposal, which was approved in 2011, When a highway=crossing node is present on the main road, a way connecting the sidewalks on the two sides of the road should be mapped. Not to override the well-established meaning of highway=crossing, this way should be tagged as follows:highway=footwayfootway=crossingHowever, the OSM wiki “tag:highway=crossing” directly contradicts this; To map a pedestrian crossing, place a node within the way representing the road, and set this highway=crossing tag on the node…footway=crossing and cycleway=crossing are sometimes used on ways which lead from a sidewalk to the crossing node (the node which has this highway=crossing tag). This is not the preferred way of tagging.Is this a simple case of information not being transferred from the approved proposal to the wiki?I have no preference on how a pedestrian crossing is mapped, but I am keen for the wiki to reflect accurate information. If we are following the approved proposal "Sidewalk as a separate way”, does anyone have objection to the wiki being changed to reflect this?Cheers-Original Message- From: Jack Armstrong Sent: Jun 9, 2020 8:03 PM To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Do we map pedestrian crossings twice? Apologies if this has already been discussed. I searched the tagging list, but couldn’t find it. Users have been adding pedestrian crossing tags on ways in addition to the street connecting nodes. In effect, a single pedestrian crossing is tagged twice. To me, this would seem contrary not only to the OSM wiki page, “Tag:highway=crossing”, but also contrary to, “One feature, one OSM element”. Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=86290585#map=20/39.63167/-104.89726 I’ve been told by a user, anecdotally, there’s a Slack group that decided this is correct. To my knowledge Slack groups do not supersede the OSM wiki. I assume mapping a crossing twice is incorrect? OSM wiki: tag:highway=crossing https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcrossing- Jack Armstrongwww.theaveragenomad.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 9:03 PM Jack Armstrong wrote: > Users have been adding pedestrian crossing tags on ways in addition to the > street connecting nodes. In effect, a single pedestrian crossing is tagged > twice. To me, this would seem contrary not only to the OSM wiki page, > “Tag:highway=crossing”, but also contrary to, “One feature, one OSM > element”. > Looks like two double carriageway roads. Effectively two crosswalks for each road thanks to the roadway going each way. So, 8 crossings is correct in this case. Granted, bad design from a safety perspective, but that's not on us, that's on whatever engineer thought that was a good idea. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?
Am Mi., 10. Juni 2020 um 14:09 Uhr schrieb Kevin Kenny < kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com>: > As far as I know, all routers need the node if they're going to, for > instance, present a warning to an approaching motorist or cyclist that > the crossing is impending. But some attributes of the crossing (most > notably, its full geometry!) can belong only to a way. +1, I am doing it usually like this: highway=footway (or cycleway) and footway=crossing on the way (from kerb to kerb). highway=crossing and crossing=traffic_signals / zebra / uncontrolled etc. on each intersection node of the street(s) with the crossing way. i.e. there is no "highway=crossing" or "crossing=*" on the way, instead the crossing information there is conveyed as a kind of footway. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 1:54 AM Andrew Davidson wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 12:04 PM Jack Armstrong > wrote: >> >> I’ve been told by a user, anecdotally, there’s a Slack group that decided >> this is correct. To my knowledge Slack groups do not supersede the OSM wiki. >> I assume mapping a crossing twice is incorrect? > > > I don't know if it is "correct" or not, but the footway=crossing tagging is > part of the Sidewalk as separate way proposal > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk_as_separate_way#Crossings. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin The technology that current routers use would have a fair amount of trouble simply deducing from the crossing cycleway that a motorist would need to avoid a crossing. Still, on a detailed map, it may well be desirable to map the dimensions of the crossing and add tags for pavement markings, kerbs (I hope not, but you never know in some places!), tactile pavement, and so on. As someone in the Slack discussion pointed out, you do have two "things" - the linear cycleway, which changes characteristics when it's on the highway surface, and the point that represents the interaction between highway and cycleway - the crossing as seen by a motorist (or a motor router). As far as I know, all routers need the node if they're going to, for instance, present a warning to an approaching motorist or cyclist that the crossing is impending. But some attributes of the crossing (most notably, its full geometry!) can belong only to a way. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 12:04 PM Jack Armstrong wrote: > I’ve been told by a user, anecdotally, there’s a Slack group that decided > this is correct. To my knowledge Slack groups do not supersede the OSM > wiki. I assume mapping a crossing twice is incorrect? > I don't know if it is "correct" or not, but the footway=crossing tagging is part of the Sidewalk as separate way proposal https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk_as_separate_way#Crossings . ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?
Apologies if this has already been discussed. I searched the tagging list, but couldn’t find it. Users have been adding pedestrian crossing tags on ways in addition to the street connecting nodes. In effect, a single pedestrian crossing is tagged twice. To me, this would seem contrary not only to the OSM wiki page, “Tag:highway=crossing”, but also contrary to, “One feature, one OSM element”. Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=86290585#map=20/39.63167/-104.89726 I’ve been told by a user, anecdotally, there’s a Slack group that decided this is correct. To my knowledge Slack groups do not supersede the OSM wiki. I assume mapping a crossing twice is incorrect? OSM wiki: tag:highway=crossing https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcrossing- Jack Armstrong ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
