> This is not in line with hat others have suggested (...) I think it's in line with what Mateusz suggested, but sorry if I mischaracterized your ideas.
Also, apologies to you both because I somehow managed to screw up both names. > and invalidating 2.5 million existing crossing=* tags (everything with a value different from yes/no) is a complete no go. Here's my attempt at restating this as a downside: using crossing:markings=yes/no combined with deprecating crossing=* tags is even worse, as it deprecates even more tags. > 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 I wouldn't call this a special exception, as traffic_signals does not currently imply markings. Some people on this list kind of sort of say it does, but the wiki doesn't. I don't think any editors do either, but I guess I haven't checked every single one. There's multiple things wrong with the current tagging schema - the others still apply if you leave crossing=* unchanged. > 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). I'm interested in this, in theory, but doesn't it actually imply redefining those 2.5 million tags? Previous mappers were never told these meanings, nor do I think they had them in mind. Redefining those tags post-hoc is actually a harder problem to address via editors / QA / data consumption than deprecation. On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 12:06 PM <osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
