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&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3vf-XqJHiAhWhzoUKHYr5D3kQ_AUIDigB&biw=1280&bih=891
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_light.
If you make a specific micromapping you will not have problems. Otherwise
you can't ask for detailed information if the mapping is not as detailed.
If you see a traffic light in a footway is for the footway, not the highway.
If you see a traffic light in a cycleway is for the cycleway, not the
highway.
There is no ambiguosity: point is where is the feature, where the feature
acts.
Why you suppose marked is better than uncontrolled? Do you suppose that new
mapper doesn't know for which kind of marks are you talk about? Marked
with? Traffic sign? Traffic light? other lights in the traffic?
Crossing tag scheme is based ...on the marks and other items you will have:
traffic_signals, supervised=yes, uncontrolled (but marked), unmarked, no
(prohibited). If you put a crossing=marked...what do you mean? , which of
them do will you substitute?
Uncontrolled means NO CONTROL. A mark is not a control. A sign is not a
control (when yes, when no). Supervised means with supervision, traffic
signals with traffic light. Unmarked...what do you expect about control if
there is not any mark.
You had said " 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 that aren't solely
focused on car routing."
No, if the crossing is in a footway you will have info about the footway,
not only for cars. In Openstreetmap there is a lot of tagging schemes who
thinks far away from cars only: kerbs, sidewalks, wheelchair...Use it also,
not only crossings.
> The iD editor never uses crossing=uncontrolled. It actually uses
crossing=marked now.
Well, I think it is a big error, because there is no marked values at the
wiki and you have the same thing with the value uncontrolled in the wiki.
>I anticipate that many US-based communities would be open to converting
crossing=uncontrolled and crossing=zebra to crossing=marked, at a minimum,
given how frequently they've been edited with iD.
I don't why US-based communities would not be open to converting
crossing=zebra (which does not exists, is crossing_ref= if you read the
wiki) to crossing=uncontrolled that is the value you can read in the wiki
instead of mix values and tags to create a new scheme.
>A controlled crossing can have or lack ground markings, and an
uncontrolled can have or lack ground markings.
Yes, but it has no-sense . Why control one thing that you don't indicate by
any way. First make it visible, then control it.
> In your country, how do you map a crossing that has traffic controls but
does not have markings on the ground?
It does not exists and I have to say I don't remember see this in the rest
of Europe I have visited.
Tagging schemes with yes/no binary values makes more complex the
scheme...yes there is only two possible values...but then you have to have
three different tags for the same thing.Yes, the scheme you are proposing
here will have more descriptional tags...but also have three more time tags
than the existing one with the same information.
> Map a crossing that is unmarked and has pedestrian signals ("walk"/"do
not walk").
That is a traffic light for pedestrian. Why do you want any mark if you
have a traffic light to control it? In my country...that situation does not
exist.
> Map a crossing that is marked and is protected by a stop sign but no
traffic light, then say how you would interpret this as a data consumer.
That is crossing=uncontrolled, because there is no control about the
footway crossing.
> Map a crossing that is unmarked and is protected by a stop sign but no
traffic light, then say how you would interpret this as a data consumer.
Well , it is crossing=unmarked because there is no marks on the corssing. A
stop sign is about the highway cross with other way, nothing to have
relation with a pedestrian crossing, otherwise you will have other kind of
traffic sign, not Stop.
> Map a crossing that is unmarked and is protected by its own,
non-street-intersection traffic light, then say how you would interpret
this as a data consumer.
Well, it will be a crossing=unmarked, because there is no mark on the
ground, also I say in my country you have avoided to cross by there except
in residential streets (the one's with the same level on sidewalk and the
road itself )
> Map a crossing that is unmarked, has pedestrian-specific signals
("walk"/"do not walk"), but no traffic signals at all nearby.
WTF? For what do you need walk/don't walk parameter if there is no traffic
light with???
> Map a crossing that has markings and is protected by a traffic light, but
that traffic light is part of the overall highway=traffic_signals
signalization, not specific to just that crossing.
Are you sure an administration will put an only car traffic light...with a
pedestrian crossing in but with no pedestrian traffic light? How bizarre
the world is.
> Map an unmarked crossing that has the same type of traffic light
situation: the light is to stop traffic at the intersection, not that
particular crossing alone. Map an unmarked crossing that has
pedestrian-specific signals ("walk"/"do not walk") and has that same
"intersection-only" traffic light.
Is there any unsyncronized crossing with the same traffic lights inside the
crossing? Which drunken monkey design these crossings? How many people die
in ?
> Map a marked crossing where pedestrians lack the right of way.
Error: Pedestrian has ALWAYS the right of way in a crossing with marks of
crossings (crossing=uncontrolled if there is no traffic_signal)
> Map an marked crossing that has dropped curbs (keep in mind that some
veteran OSM mappers have stated that dropped curbs are a control).
No. Control is something that sometimes says you if you are allowed or not
to cross. A dropped curb says you always the same: nothing.
All the things in this life can be ambiguos but uncontrolled means
uncontrolled, unmarked means unmarked, and a traffic_signal is a
traffic_signal.
Best regards
Health and crossings
yopaseopor
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 12:46 AM Nick Bolten <nbol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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 have or lack ground markings, and an uncontrolled can have or lack
> ground markings.
>
> > Well, in my country it is, when there is a traffic signals with
> pedestrian traffic signal there is a crossing=traffic_signals. Otherwise is
> crossing=no because there is no crossing at all.
>
> In your country, how do you map a crossing that has traffic controls but
> does not have markings on the ground?
>
> > Change the questions:
> > -Is there any traffic signal in the crossing?
> > -Is there any supervision in the crossing?
> > -Is there any mark in the crossing?
>
> I don't know what it means for a crossing to be supervised, but I do like
> the others you've listed. I would prefer that the crossing=* tagging schema
> reflect the questions you are asking, they're the right ones for
> pedestrians. What I'm saying is that the current OSM schema seems to ask
> the questions I listed, but they get described by a single value like
> "uncontrolled", to the confusion of all. In other words:
> crossing=uncontrolled implies at least 3 pieces of information. Imagine if
> we instead had a schema for your questions that looked something like this:
>
> crossing:traffic_signal=yes/no/*
> crossing:supervision=yes/no/*
> crossing:marking=yes/no/* (or crossing=marked/unmarked/*)
>
> That would be separating those questions out much better than the current
> schema and be much easier to map.
>
> > No , for a pedestrian way which passes inside an island I have
> footway=crossing because there si a footway inside a island. I don't need a
> tag which says things I can see in the situation for the map. It is the
> same reason I don't need crossing=marked if I have crossing=uncontrolled.
> Mark is not a control.
>
> While it is not as thoroughly-documented as it could be, the wiki states
> that crossing:island can be applied to the footway:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing:island. Specifically,
> "or alternatively on a pedestrian crossing way highway=footway +
> footway=crossing".
>
> As an example, imagine that you are a data consumer and you want to tell a
> pedestrian router that they are using an island. If you were to look up a
> crossing:island key on a given footway, you could tell them, "use a traffic
> island to get to <whatever>". You can, of course, also use an advanced
> router that extracts crossing:island from a node.
>
> > Well, we have it and it is called crossing_ref.
>
> crossing_ref is not actually a tag for noting the type of markings, nor
> was it intended to be. It's a dumping ground for the older UK-centric
> tagging schema that used zebra, toucan, pelican, etc, with those
> UK-specific right-of-way implications. For example, crossing_ref does not
> have a "ladder" key, even though that's an extremely common marking type:
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/crossing_ref#values. As you can
> see, pretty much all of them are just "zebra". Many people from the UK get
> annoyed when you call a US-based ladder crossing a "zebra crossing", as our
> ladder crossings do not have the same right-of-way implications nor the
> angled markings.
>
> > I was talking about crossing=zebra issue.
>
> Ah, I see. I just misunderstood, my fault.
>
> > Tell me one situation you cannot map in detail with present tagging
> scheme.
>
> * Map a crossing that is unmarked and has pedestrian signals ("walk"/"do
> not walk").
> * Map a crossing that is marked and is protected by a stop sign but no
> traffic light, then say how you would interpret this as a data consumer.
> * Map a crossing that is unmarked and is protected by a stop sign but no
> traffic light, then say how you would interpret this as a data consumer.
> * Map a crossing that is unmarked and is protected by its own,
> non-street-intersection traffic light, then say how you would interpret
> this as a data consumer.
> * Map a crossing that is unmarked, has pedestrian-specific signals
> ("walk"/"do not walk"), but no traffic signals at all nearby.
> * Map a crossing that has markings and is protected by a traffic light,
> but that traffic light is part of the overall highway=traffic_signals
> signalization, not specific to just that crossing.
> * Map an unmarked crossing that has the same type of traffic light
> situation: the light is to stop traffic at the intersection, not that
> particular crossing alone. Map an unmarked crossing that has
> pedestrian-specific signals ("walk"/"do not walk") and has that same
> "intersection-only" traffic light.
> * Map a marked crossing where pedestrians lack the right of way.
> * Map an marked crossing that has dropped curbs (keep in mind that some
> veteran OSM mappers have stated that dropped curbs are a control).
>
> I have no doubt that you can come up with some examples that *mostly*
> work. But they will be ambiguous to a data consumer and often most mappers.
>
> Best,
>
> Nick
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
