Am Mo., 20. Mai 2019 um 07:53 Uhr schrieb Nick Bolten <nbol...@gmail.com>:
> Hello everyone, this is a late addition to this thread (I'll start a new > one soon after I improve the proposal page), but I want to give an example > of a crossing that has lights but no markings that is traversed by > (guessing) thousands of people per day: > https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=0fa511ff-b1e5-4011-b16c-d96c0c4ce8a5&cp=47.611664~-122.336542&lvl=19&dir=251.4678&pi=-22.174986&style=x&mo=z.0&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027. > Despite having a lot of interesting art, there is no way to distinguish the > crossing location from non-crossing locations via markings on the ground. > > This is topical, as crossing=traffic_signals is often claimed to imply > crossing=marked. > It is very common to see markings at traffic signal controlled crossings, but I would not see them as a requirement, and I do not think it is written anywhere that it should be. From my understanding, it seemed not interesting for most mappers to distinguish traffic light controlled markings from unmarked ones, and you will likely have a hard time to convince them (as this thread shows) to retag all crossings just because there may be exceptions or situations where it may be relevant. In your example it could even be interpreted as if there were some kind of "markings" (different paving, designated pedestrian waiting area), but moving forward, the next crossing does not, so we can safely assume it is a situation that actually occurs. I would suggest to tag the exception, i.e. the absence of crossing markings where there is a pedestrian traffic light controlled crossing, with an additional property for the crossing node. Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
