Proposal talk:Deprecate crossing=zebra in favor of crossing:markings

Typo in title

"Deprecate crossing=cebra in favor of crossing:markings" instead of "Deprecate crossing=zebra in favor of crossing:markings" --MalgiK (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the info, didn't catch that. Has been fixed. --Bauer33333 (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The reason not to is already stated in the proposal

crossing=zebra was originally intended to describe zebra crossings in the UK with their respective legal effects

If these legally defined crossings haven't been eliminated in their entirety throughout the UK and any former colonies who still use the term then the reason for it hasn't gone away. It is shorthand for something with legal consequences and the common term, it's easy to type, it's simple: leave it alone. --InsertUser (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

In the Commonwealth, crossing:markings=zebra still doesn't necessarily mean crossing_ref=zebra

• UK: There are Implied Zebra crossings being trialed locally that don't have Belisha Beacons, and zig-zag lines
• Hong Kong: Yellow stripes are used at signalized crosswalks to mean no blocking (equivalent to box junction), and at non-public road or bus terminal crosswalks without pedestrian priority for visibility

—— Kovposch (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@InsertUser: Long ago, the community made the same observation and the result was crossing_ref=zebra. But deprecating crossing=zebra hit strident opposition, not so much from the UK but from certain parts of continental Europe, where the tag was not being used with quite the same semantics, by those with no love lost for iD. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 03:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@InsertUser: Zebra crossings without Belisha beacons aren't "implied" and they aren't being "trialled locally". The law in Great Britain has not required that they be used for zebra crossings on cycle tracks since at least 2016. Schedule 14, Part 1, para. 25 TSRGD 2016 --Rskedgell (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Please link to the bit where I use the phrase "trialled locally". You seem to be referring to arguments I'm not making --InsertUser (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, that suggestion was made by @Kovposch: above, not by you. --Rskedgell (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@InsertUser: Even if crossing=zebra might still work in the UK, it certainly does not in other countries, including a lot of the colonies. While we could deprecate crossing=zebra only outside the UK all the global tag suggestion systems will turn this into a herding cats event. --Bauer33333 (talk) 08:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

"all the global tag suggestion systems will turn this into a herding cats even" Well that's the real root of this proposal isn't it? The software changes at the whim of whoever happens to be maintaining it today and suddenly the community now has to come up with newer more bloated tagging to mean the same thing. --InsertUser (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

"Well that's the real root of this proposal isn't it?" It is not, that statement was about a deprecation only in some areas instead of worldwide, not the current situation. The intend is rather to start tackeling the bloat a bit. This proposal does not introduce any new tags. If the current growth of crossing:markings=* continues at the same rate all crossing=* worldwide will have an additional crossing:markings=* tag within about three years. Even if you want you can't stop the usage of that tag anymore. So instead we can now start to reduce the values of crossing=* and eventually phase it out completely long term. --Bauer33333 (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I actually don't have a problem with the crossing:markings=* tag, there are places that vary this even for the same type of crossing. But reducing bloat by removing a very common value that doesn't conflict with anything is utterly pointless and can only be done by wasting a huge amount of contributor time or automatically deleting useful information. --InsertUser (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)