From: Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, 25 May 2019 10:18 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no
The labels chosen for these 4 categories are : no, unmarked, uncontrolled, traffic_signals. But they may as well have been a, b, c, d. Don’t try to interpret anything more into the label. e: controlled (crossing guard/lollipop person). That is not one of the broad categories defined on the wiki. Though the value has been used about 1k times. According to the wiki, the correct way to tag such a crossing would be to add a supervised=yes tag together with an appropriate crossing=* tag, This combination of crossing and supervised has been used 44k times, so seems to be significantly more popular. Which makes some sense, because I’ve seen (in the real world) both unmarked and “uncontrolled” (which, granted, shows that that isn’t a particularly good label for the concept it’s meant to represent, if people try to interpret a meaning into it) crossings that at certain times are supervised. But such supervision is generally not present 24/7, so in other times it usually is simply a normal unmarked or uncontrolled crossing. These are the 4 different mutually exclusive types of crossings that need to be distinguished. +1 for "mutually exclusive." Except, perhaps, in Poland. I'm still waiting for an answer on that one. I’m still thinking you’ve been misinterpreting the messages in that regard. We may need clearer documentation, particularly country-specific documentation. Maybe also editor presets with country-specific intelligence. Looking at the wiki, the documentation could definitely use some work. But the fundamental concepts of the existing tagging scheme seem fine.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
