I agree that it's very confuddled. I'm going to start a new thread soon
after I make some updates to the proposal, primarily for clarity and
covering some of the most common questions that have come up here. I'd like
to steal your examples, if you don't mind, for the wiki.
The response you
When mapping in Japan, I map all sidewalks. as a Califorinian, where sidewalks
are common and usually follow the road alignment at all times, I understand
OSM’s tenancy to map sidewalks are merely an attribute of the road - but when
dealing with the sidewalks in Japan, they oftentimes follow
On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 18:38, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> NB: This crossing is not mapped correctly in OSM as there is no common
> node betweet crossing footway and crossed road.
>
Correct!
But when I mapped it, those errors weren't coming up - there's lot's that
I've got back & "join" :-(
Thanks
On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 17:23, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14/05/19 17:14, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:
>
> Haven’t checked if it shows up as an error, but technically, the grass on
> each side is the “sidewalk”, and it is simply a shortcoming of the current
> tagging
On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 05:10, wrote:
>
> I must admit that I only map crossings when they are between formed
> footpaths eg
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/553154851, not where there is only a
> grass footpath.
>
NB: This crossing is not mapped correctly in OSM as there is no common node
sent from a phone
> On 14. May 2019, at 09:16,
> wrote:
>
> People do generally walk on this “grass” sidewalk.
they could, but if they would, it would not remain grass ;-)
Cheers, Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
*Sent:* Tuesday, 14 May 2019 10:24
*To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
*Subject:* Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked
On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 05:10, <mailto:osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au>> wrote:
I must admit that I only map crossings when they are betwe
People do generally walk on this “grass” sidewalk.
From: Martin Koppenhoefer
Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2019 16:04
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked
sent from a phone
On 14. May 2019, at 02:24, Graeme Fitzpatrick
from sidewalk to street
for wheelchair users or people pushing prams, and I think it’s worthwhile to
map them.
From: Graeme Fitzpatrick
Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2019 10:24
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked
On Tue
sent from a phone
On 14. May 2019, at 02:24, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>> https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/558999688670609448/577570543851536401/unknown.png
>
> That one, I would have terminated the crossing at the marked road, rather
> than taking it to the other side
the lowered
On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 05:10, wrote:
I must admit that I only map crossings when they are between formed
footpaths eg
https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.070784,153.4361817,3a,75y,133.97h,57.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saeYx4cpvnikG8KXcdh0pGw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Forgot that part:
> On my walk yesterday, other than the implied crossing at every
> intersection (but see "don't map local law") I noted the following:
I do generally map crossings as long as they have lowered kerbs, like here:
> 1. Combined foot/cycle crossing - a side path from a combined
> foot/cycleway onto a very lightly trafficked suburban street. Marked
> with signs bearing the silhouette of a bicycle about 50 m in advance
> of the crossing. No markings on the pavement. (This crossing is part
> of my daily
This discussion is leaving me pretty bewildered.
Sometimes my bewilderment can be alleviated by considering concrete examples.
On my walk yesterday, other than the implied crossing at every
intersection (but see "don't map local law") I noted the following:
1. Combined foot/cycle crossing - a
sent from a phone
> On 12. May 2019, at 21:27, Nick Bolten wrote:
>
> Regarding an "uncontrolled pedestrian crossing", keep in mind that the wiki
> calls a crossing "uncontrolled" if it just has markings on the ground, which
> disagrees with what uncontrolled actually means everywhere else.
sent from a phone
> On 12. May 2019, at 21:27, Nick Bolten wrote:
>
> It's easy to sympathize: we've got a tag about a *crossing* specifying
> *traffic* signals, but not the exact kind of traffic (pedestrians are also
> referred to as traffic) nor signal type aside from it being lights.
I
> hm, would you consider these traffic lights, or not? It basically depends
on this interpretation whether you should use a different tag or would use
crossing=traffic_lights If you decide for the latter it could still make
sense to add another tag for the specific crossing (sub)type.
Personally,
> If the light is purely a warning to both traffic and pedestrians, then
it's not crossing=traffic_signals. If it controls both traffic and
pedestrians (control as in indicating whether they should halt or proceed)
then it's crossing=traffic_signals. Your situation of warning lights for
traffic
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 10:47, Tony Shield wrote:
> Do we map the pedestrian aspects of traffic light controlled crossings?
> i.e the Walk/DontWalk or the Green/Red figures?
>
> As a pedestrian I have used many British traffic junctions controlled by
> traffic lights for the vehicles but no
Do we map the pedestrian aspects of traffic light controlled crossings?
i.e the Walk/DontWalk or the Green/Red figures?
As a pedestrian I have used many British traffic junctions controlled by
traffic lights for the vehicles but no aspects for the pedestrian who
has to guess and hope.
Can
sent from a phone
> On 11. May 2019, at 01:42, Nick Bolten wrote:
>
> Having trouble finding a good picture (I'll keep looking), but there are
> mid-block crossings where pedestrians can press an APS to turn on traffic
> warning lights - usually yellow in the US. Some of these crossings do
On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 01:09, Nick Bolten wrote:
> > I would not expect to see something like that, in any of its regional
> variations (green walking person/red stationary person in much of Europe)
> without related lights controlling traffic.
>
> So, in the case of a pedestrian warning beacon,
> I'd still classify that as crossing=traffic_signals.
Ah, now I'm super confused. I would've sworn that you'd recommend mapping
that as uncontrolled.
> The real world is too messy. Can we map a fictional world instead?
People actually love doing that:
On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 00:44, Nick Bolten wrote:
> Having trouble finding a good picture (I'll keep looking), but there are
> mid-block crossings where pedestrians can press an APS to turn on traffic
> warning lights - usually yellow in the US. Some of these crossings do not
> immediately give
> I would not expect to see something like that, in any of its regional
variations (green walking person/red stationary person in much of Europe)
without related lights controlling traffic.
So, in the case of a pedestrian warning beacon, which does not control
traffic in the cases you've
> you have still to show us a crossing with traffic lights only for
pedestrians :)
Having trouble finding a good picture (I'll keep looking), but there are
mid-block crossings where pedestrians can press an APS to turn on traffic
warning lights - usually yellow in the US. Some of these crossings
> If you search traffic light you will see the same thing, not any strange
light in relation with traffic itself.
https://www.google.com/search?q=traffic+light=lnms=isch=X=0ahUKEwj3vf-XqJHiAhWhzoUKHYr5D3kQ_AUIDigB=1280=891
> (...)
> There is no ambiguosity: point is where is the feature, where the
On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 23:59, Nick Bolten wrote:
> >> - A crossing might be marked on the ground
>
> > Are there traffic signals which control BOTH traffic and pedestrians?
> If so,
> > crossing=traffic_signals. If there are JUST road markings, no
> crossing=traffic_signals.
>
> I interpret
sent from a phone
> On 11. May 2019, at 00:57, Nick Bolten wrote:
>
> If only one or the other, it is not a crossing=traffic_signals.
you have still to show us a crossing with traffic lights only for pedestrians :)
Crossing refers to a pedestrian (or bicycle) crossing, when there are only
>> - A crossing might be marked on the ground
> Are there traffic signals which control BOTH traffic and pedestrians? If
so,
> crossing=traffic_signals. If there are JUST road markings, no
crossing=traffic_signals.
I interpret this to mean: the necessary condition for using
sent from a phone
> On 10. May 2019, at 23:17, yo paseopor wrote:
>
> A mark is not a control. A sign is not a control (when yes, when no)
signs and markings are commonly considered traffic controls.
Cheers, Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
No, don't be innocent
If you search traffic light you will see the same thing, not any strange
light in relation with traffic itself.
https://www.google.com/search?q=traffic+light=lnms=isch=X=0ahUKEwj3vf-XqJHiAhWhzoUKHYr5D3kQ_AUIDigB=1280=891
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_light.
If you
On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 21:03, Nick Bolten wrote:
> I still don't know when you think we should use crossing=traffic_signals...
>
> - A crossing might be marked on the ground
>
Are there traffic signals which control BOTH traffic and pedestrians? If
so,
crossing=traffic_signals. If there are
I still don't know when you think we should use crossing=traffic_signals...
Imagine you're outside the UK. Pelican signals don't exist. No animal
signals, mythical or real, of any kind. There's just infrastructure:
- A crossing might be marked on the ground
- A crossing might have lighted
On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 19:27, Nick Bolten wrote:
> This all makes sense, but the question is: what does
> crossing=traffic_lights mean given these contexts? There are at least 3
> types of lights and I've seen all of them referred to as "traffic lights",
> even on UK government websites:
>
> -
This all makes sense, but the question is: what does
crossing=traffic_lights mean given these contexts? There are at least 3
types of lights and I've seen all of them referred to as "traffic lights",
even on UK government websites:
- Pedestrian signals, i.e. "walk/do not walk" lights of any kind
On Thu, 9 May 2019 at 23:26, Nick Bolten wrote:
>
> Yes, but a traffic light for whom? I've seen mappers who assume it means
> "walk"/"do not walk" lights like this:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Do_Not_Walk_sign,_Great_Neck,_New_York.jpg.
> I've seen mappers who assume it means
On Thu, 9 May 2019 at 23:46, Nick Bolten wrote:
>
> I don't know what it means for a crossing to be supervised,
>
I assume what is meant by "supervised" is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_guard
The supervised crossing may have markings or even lights, or possibly
neither. The lollipop
> If there is not any control of the crossing...yes otherwise should be
crossing=traffic_signals or supervised=yes as you can read in the wiki.
But the meaning of "control" varies by region and municipality, and does
not imply the presence or absence of ground markings. A controlled crossing
can
> I have checked out your proposal...and I don't know what is the
difference with a crossing=marked (yours) and a crossing=uncontrolled (in
OSM)
crossing=marked indicates that a crossing has markings. That's it: the
"type" of crossing is declared to be whether it has markings on the ground
or
> they are also intended to mean: not controlled by a traffic light (while
„marked“ likely would include traffic light crossings)
Yes, but a traffic light for whom? I've seen mappers who assume it means
"walk"/"do not walk" lights like this:
sent from a phone
> On 7. May 2019, at 22:57, Nick Bolten wrote:
>
> One of the primary confusions is the "uncontrolled" (and "zebra") values,
> which are, in effect, intended to mean that a crossing is "marked"
they are also intended to mean: not controlled by a traffic light (while
I have checked out your proposal...and I don't know what is the difference
with a crossing=marked (yours) and a crossing=uncontrolled (in OSM)
I don't agree with you. I think you are forgotten all the other items to
tag and the others tagging schemes in OSM. Kerbs are not for cars,
cycleways are
This subthread is doing a good job of showing why "uncontrolled" is opaque
to users and mappers, as it is primarily an issue of local legal questions
and not physical, on-the-ground features, despite the fact that
"uncontrolled" in OSM is meant to also describe those (like markings).
Because it's
> I don't know why we need a new tag scheme.
Please check out my proposal, as I've laid out several reasons. As someone
who has personally mapped thousands of crossings, the current schema is
absolute garbage for reliably collecting accurate data that can be reliably
interpreted by data consumers
> I suggest that you read the discussion I started in December
about crossing=zebra because it is the main cause of the current situation.
I read it back in December, but I disagree. The cause of the situation is
the huge problems with the crossing=* values for marked crossings. That
problem also
On 08/05/2019 22:48, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
I thought that controlled means that their is signage / indication of
some form that says a driver has to stop to allow pedestrians to cross
I would take it to be more than that: something that controls *when* the
vehicles have priority and when
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 2:48 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
> Now we may (yet again!) be getting caught up in the
> one-word-different-meanings-worldwide saga, but, in Australia at least,
> "zebra" crossings (parallel alternating black & white stripes crossing the
> road) are controlled - they
On Thu, 9 May 2019 at 03:38, yo paseopor wrote:
> zebra is marked but uncontrolled
>
Maybe (quite possibly!) I'm getting confused over the whole controlled /
uncontrolled concept?
I thought that controlled means that their is signage / indication of some
form that says a driver has to stop to
Le 08.05.19 à 19:37, yo paseopor a écrit :
> zebra is marked but uncontrolled (if it is controlled you can use other
> value)
but if you see a zebra with satellite image, you often have no idea if a
the crossing have a traffic light or not in a lot of country (like in
I don't know why we need a new tag scheme.
I remember my explanation of the question and the adaptation of the
possibilities. I repeat them here:
crossing=no (prohibited)
crossing=yes (most generic)
crossing=traffic_light is with traffic lights. So implies
crossing=controlled.
Le 07.05.19 à 22:57, Nick Bolten a écrit :
> - crossing=* values are not truly orthogonal and this needs to be
> addressed. e.g., "uncontrolled", "traffic_signals", and "unmarked" are
> not truly orthogonal descriptors.
I suggest that you read the discussion I started in December about
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crossing%3Dmarked
Hello, fellow tagging enthusiasts! At long last, and after many discussions
on a variety of fora, I am putting this proposal forward in the hopes of
getting feedback, making any necessary revisions, and then moving to a vote.
53 matches
Mail list logo
