Hi all I appreciate the discussions about tagging crossing - more examples and local usages are important! If possible, though, I'd appreciate feedback on crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no.
A current rundown: Pro crossing=marked/unmarked: - Already in use in the wild. No need to update some editors. - Fewer tags to deprecate if namespace is fully orthogonalized. Pro crossing:markings=yes/no: - Describes markings as attribute of crossings, not a contentious "type" of crossing. - Could potentially live alongside current non-orthogonal schema (good for community acceptance, potentially bad for long-term consensus) - Even more taggable crossing attributes would be in a crossing:*=* namespace. Easier to find/organize/understand. I think both fix the problem of orthogonality equally well. Thoughts? Any other advantages to one vs. the other? On Fri, May 24, 2019, 10:55 AM Nick Bolten <nbol...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi everyone! > > I have two proposals out regarding the crossing tag and how it is not > orthogonal, leading to all kinds of issues in mapping crossings and later > interpreting that data. As currently written, if both proposals were > accepted, crossing=traffic_signals/uncontrolled/unmarked would become two > tags: crossing=marked/unmarked and crossing:signals=yes/no. > > Both Tobias and Masteuz have made an interesting suggestions about > crossing=marked/unmarked, which is that it still has the problem of > declaring that a crossing has a "type" (marked or unmarked) whereas it > could be considered another attribute, just like having traffic signals. > > To give background, I initially chose crossing=marked/unmarked because (1) > both are in use in the wild, (2) the schema is equally non-ambiguous, and > (3) if I had to decide on the "type" of a crossing, I'd separate those with > no indication of their presence aside from regionally-varying conventions > (which is currently mapped as crossing=unmarked) from all the rest. But > point 3 isn't completely true: a crossing that has only signals but no > clear ground markings is less abstract/"fictitious" than a crossing > established solely by convention, with no infrastructure saying where to > cross. > > 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
