This is not in line with hat others have suggested, and invalidating 2.5 million existing crossing=* tags (everything with a value different from yes/no) is a complete no go.
As you said, what others suggested, and what would be a welcome addition, is to leave the existing tag untouched (it seems to work fine for most people except you), and tag the special exception where a crossing=traffic_signals doesn’t have road markings with crossing:markings=no What can be done here is to basically define that the different crossing=* values imply default values for various other tags (the same way as the wiki currently already documents what e.g. crossing=zebra or crossing=pelican implies). From: Nick Bolten <nbol...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, 25 May 2019 03:55 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging@openstreetmap.org> Subject: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no In contrast, crossing:markings=yes/no would let us avoid making decisions about the "type" of crossing entirely. If it were swapped out for the crossing=marked/unmarked proposal, it would result in this schema for crossings: crossing=no (for crossings that should be specifically called out as not doable/allowed) crossing:markings=yes/no crossing:signals=yes/no crossing_ref=* (unchanged) There has also been the suggestion that crossing=* could be left unchanged, and these two new tags added as alternatives. I like that this potentially avoids conflict and therefore makes it easier to start mapping this data separately, but think it would result in competing schemas and redundant data. So, what are you thoughts? Is crossing:markings=yes/no better than crossing=marked/unmarked? Are there any downsides/upsides I've missed? If crossing:markings were preferable, what should happen to the crossing=* tag?
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
