Oct 18, 2020, 10:27 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > On 18/10/2020 07:46, Volker Schmidt wrote: > >> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 09:46, Martin Koppenhoefer <>> >> dieterdre...@gmail.com>> > wrote: >> >>> Generally, I would propose to only tag crossing =* on >>> the crossing node, but refrain from access like tags on >>> this node (no bicycle or foot tags). The access should >>> be derived from the crossing ways. >>> >> >> This statement is only correct if there are crossing ways using >> the crossing node. >> However, in practical terms it happens very often that in a >> first mapping of a road the foot and/or bicycle crossings, as >> they are nicely visible on aerial imaging, ar mapped, but not >> the crossing foot- and/or cycle-ways, mainly because the >> details are not visible on aerial imagery or the mapper is not >> interested, at that stage, in foot/cycling details. And the >> distinction, at least in Italy, between foot-only and combined >> foot-cycle crossing are well visable on satellite imagery. Also >> traffic-signals are often clearly visible because of the >> stop lines. Hence in that first round it is easy to map >> crossings and basic crossing types. The crossing way is then >> often added later. To me it comes natural not to remove the >> existing tagging on a crossing node when I add a crossing way >> later. >> > > But what is the use of adding bicycle=no/dismount for, let's call it a > solitary crossings? > > What you mean by "solitary crossing"?
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
