Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand

Lukas-458 Tue, 14 Apr 2020 03:25:03 -0700

To response on the mentioning:

"Currently the wiki page says "traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand makes
it easy to mark all traffic lights which do only control a crossing",
again I personally find highway=traffic_signals +
crossing=traffic_signals sufficient for that"

Yes, that's true. I agree with that, but my point is, that not only those traffic lights, which do control only a crossing, a mapped like this. Mappers use it just as a shortcut for traffic light and crossing, no matter in which relation between each other they are. That is not wrong, but it does not really show for what the lane traffic lights are "resposible". Please have a look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1339612951 and many many others in this city. The traffic lights of course control the crossing, yes, but they control the junction nearby, too.

So looking at highway=traffic_signals + crossing=traffic_signals on the same node also makes it not possible to see only those crossings where n junction or something else is, as I see it at the moment.

Gesendet: Dienstag, 14. April 2020 um 12:12 Uhr
Von: lukas-...@web.de
An: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand

Hi,

the difference would be that traffic signals which control a junction but a crossing too, can have buttons for pedestrians as well as traffic signals which do only control a crossing. At least here in Germany. With looking at button_operated, you cannot clear whether the traffic lights are controlling a crossng only and not a junction.

Soon I will add some photos you mentioned it would be a bit clearer maybe then.

Lukas

Gesendet: Dienstag, 14. April 2020 um 11:03 Uhr
Von: "Volker Schmidt" <vosc...@gmail.com>
An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand

What's the difference between

highway=traffic_signals plus button_poperated=yes

and

highway=traffic_signals plus traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand

On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 02:55, Jarek Piórkowski <ja...@piorkowski.ca> wrote:

On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 12:56, Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 17:43, <lukas-...@web.de> wrote:
>> The second goal my proposal wants to message is to deprecate tagging "crossing=traffic_signals" together with "highway=traffic_signals" on the same node. Especially if you're saying this is a full crossing mapped. It breaks the highway=crossing - tagging scheme we use for all other types of crossing (except crossing=no). Some mappers use "crossing=traffic_signals" together with "highway=traffic_signals" on the same node als a shortcut for "lane traffic signal" and "foot traffic signal" because it is rendered as two traffic signals in JOSM. Or for mapping traffic signals for crossing cyclists. But I think in every case it is better to use two different (nearby) nodes for that.
>
> Am I misunderstanding you? You propose using two nearby nodes for
> https://goo.gl/maps/3Sg5ndQ2ZCMBN9uy9 You can just see the yellow
> pedestrian-control box at the left. It controls the crossing (marked with studs)
> going from left to right across the picture. The same lights that tell motorists
> to stop for pedestrians also control traffic flow at the T junction ahead. The
> same set of lights is both a highway traffic signal and a crossing traffic signal.
> This sort of thing is not uncommon in the UK, with the same set of lights
> being used for both purposes.

My understanding was that traffic signals=crossing on demand is meant
for things like https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2771622922 (
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/2oyFQXVHvy2r-XypCZTECg ) however I
might be wrong? Or https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1416834957 (
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/DkuEFqSbOuQPGMtABsFFCA ) including
cyclists? (Esri is good for satellite imagery of these)

Personally I find highway=traffic_signals + crossing=traffic_signals
on one node sufficient for these crossings.

Currently the wiki page says "traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand makes
it easy to mark all traffic lights which do only control a crossing",
again I personally find highway=traffic_signals +
crossing=traffic_signals sufficient for that - maybe I'm missing
something. Of course any new tags can be proposed. But I would suggest
adding some real-world photos of crossings that would be tagged with
crossing_on_demand to the wiki page.

--Jarek

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand

Reply via email to