"The "traffic_signals" namespace is used to describe both vehicular traffic signals and pedestrian/bicycle traffic signals, to everyone's confusion."
This statement is simply completely factually wrong. a) traffic_signals is the *value* here, not the name of the tag b) there are 2 distinct tags to describe the presence of traffic signals for the road way and foot/cycle way: highway=traffic_signals for signals controlling traffic on the road crossing=traffic_signals for signals controlling crossing pedestrians "To make matters worse, it forces mappers to choose between tagging a crossing's markings, [...], or whether it has signalization." Personally, I can not remember having ever seen, in my whole life, a signal controlled pedestrian crossing that does not have road markings, excluding cases where there are temporarily no road markings at all because they haven't been painted yet after the road has just been laid down or resurfaced. And even if there should really be signal controlled crossings that on purpose do not have any road markings, I would consider that to be basically completely irrelevant. The presence of signals that control traffic and pedestrian movement supersedes the meaning any road markings might have. If a signal controlled crossing has road markings or not does not in any way change its operation. Deprecating a tag that has been used almost 600000 times and has widespread software support, just to replace it with a different tag that means exactly the same seems somewhat insane to me, and while I can't speak for anyone else, I can guarantee to always vote no for this. "Replacing crossing=island" I can agree with this one, but it's essentially a non-issue as this has already been done. At most the wiki might need slight editing to make it more clear that the use of crossing=island has been deprecated. "Replacing crossing=uncontrolled and crossing=zebra with crossing=marked" crossing=uncontrolled and crossing=zebra have been used a combined 1.25 million times. In practical usage, they mean exactly the same thing, and they have widespread software support already. Trying to replace them with a 3rd value that still means exactly the same things is a classical case of https://xkcd.com/927/ Looking at taginfo, there are already 168281 cases of crossing=marked right now, so the unfortunate reality is that we already have the case of 3 different values meaning the same thing and no matter how much you try to dictate the usage of a particular one by fiddling with the wiki, it's unlikely that there will ever be a day when all 3 aren't in widespread use synonymously. As such the best that can be done is to slightly adjust the wiki to document the reality that all 3 values are used synonymously. All this basically leaves the crossing key with the following possible values: no - there is no crossing possible/legal here unmarked - there are no road markings or traffic signals here, but this is a place where people are generally (legally) cross the road, e.g. because of lowered kerbs, or because the sidewalk on one side of the road stops here, or some other indication that this is a commonly used crossing point. uncontrolled/zebra/marked - there are road markings, but no signals that control traffic flow, that make it clear to both road and pedestrian traffic that this is a designated crossing point traffic_signals - there are traffic signals here that control traffic flow, it is extremely likely that there are also road markings, but their presence or absence is irrelevant as it would not change how the crossing operates I think you'll find that any proposal that tries to completely throw over this well-established tagging scheme is doomed to failure. > -----Original Message----- > From: Markus <selfishseaho...@gmail.com> > Sent: Monday, 20 May 2019 00:37 > To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related > questions > > Hi Nick, hi everyone, > > I welcome these proposals (crossing=marked, crossing:signals=* and > footway=island) [1] to bring order to the pedestrian crossing > tagging. > Thank you, Nick, for your efforts so far! > > I have two questions, not about the proposals themselves, but about > pedestrian crossing tagging in general: > > * When the crossing type is tagged on the way (e.g. > highway=footway > + footway=crossing + crossing=marked + crossing:signals=yes), should > the crossing type also be tagged (duplicated) on the crossing node > or are routers able to get that information from the crossing ways? > > * Should the road be split for short refuge islands into two one- > way ways? This would result in unusual maps, especially at > crossroads > (example: [2]). > > [1]: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Unambiguous_cr > ossings > [2]: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Crossroads_with_traffic_isl > ands.png > > Regards > > Markus > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
