Talk:Key:crossing

Current usage

From User:Gravitystorm's helpful post in OSM-Talk: --achadwick 10:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

For those interested in the nitty gritty, some SQL follows. Updated with data from 23 July 2008 planet

gis=> select crossing, count(*) from planet_osm_point where crossing is not null group by crossing order by count(*) desc;
   crossing     | count 
-----------------+-------
toucan          |   277
pelican         |   239
zebra           |   205
traffic_signals |   163
uncontrolled    |    87
island          |    19
yes             |    19
sign:stop       |     8
traffic_lights  |     8
controlled      |     7
traffic_signal  |     6
puffin          |     4
none            |     2
pegasus         |     2
traffic_island  |     1
foot            |     1
traffic_light   |     1
underground     |     1
pedestrian      |     1
Zebra           |     1
underpass       |     1
unclassified    |     1
true            |     1
Toucan          |     1
lolly pop       |     1
(25 rows)

gis=> select count(*) from planet_osm_point where crossing is not null;
count 
-------
 1057
(1 row)

Could someone give the statistics for the UK only? Then we can see how it's distributed compared to the whole planet. --Eimai 17:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

From David Stubbs' post on the mailing list (added up to group by crossing, eliminating the highway grouping; also eliminated a couple of toucans which were not attributed to any country.): --Hawke 22:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   crossing     |        country         |  c
----------------+------------------------+-----
pelican         | United Kingdom         | 176
toucan          | United Kingdom         | 176
zebra           | United Kingdom         | 122
traffic_signals | United Kingdom         |  18
island          | United Kingdom         |   7
uncontrolled    | United Kingdom         |   4
traffic_lights  | United Kingdom         |   4
yes             | United Kingdom         |   3
Zebra           | United Kingdom         |   1
underpass       | United Kingdom         |   1
puffin          | United Kingdom         |   1
unclassified    | United Kingdom         |   1

traffic_signals | Germany                |  60
uncontrolled    | Germany                |  15
none            | Germany                |   2
toucan          | Germany                |   2
traffic_lights  | Germany                |   1

uncontrolled    | Byelarus               |  34
traffic_signals | Byelarus               |  23
no              | Byelarus               |   1

uncontrolled    | Norway                 |   1

Proposed?

Shouldn't this page be categorized as "proposed" features? Right now it looks like it's the "official" tagging rules, while certainly no vote has been going on about it... --Eimai 14:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No - right now, it's an attempt to document and break down current usage. We should make that clearer at the top. See Proposed_features/Road_crossings for a current proposal in this area. --achadwick 15:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Does the fact that the "current usage" was started at the same time as that proposal have any bearing on it? IMO they're equally-valid proposals for that reason. --Hawke 23:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Actual current use vs the voted in proposal

Unless you are updating it to show *actual current use* of the crossing=* tag, don't mess around with this page. I have no problems with other ideas for tagging crossings but this is not the page to document them. Gravitystorm 11:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your arguments. Proposed_features/Road_crossings is a proposed feature. So the *current usage* has changed. the "old" *current usage* is very UK-specific and not usefull for mapping out of UK --Cbm 13:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's very straightforward. The current usage is how *this key* is being used in the planet. No amount of alternative ways of doing things or voting or proposals changes these facts. You may consider that the "current guidelines for tagging crossings" has changed to something else but the "current usage of the crossing=* key" is what values are actually in the planet itself. This page is "Key:crossing" not "Tagging crossings guidelines". Gravitystorm 16:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

But if -- like you say -- the page of the crossing key that's full of tags which are only current usage and have nothing to do with voting, proposals, guidelines or anything else is superseded by a page where the new usage of the key was proposed, has been voted on, and was approved, then it's only normal that the current tags will get moved to the new usage. --Eimai 16:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

to see the "current usage of the crossing=*" I only need the Tagwatch... so this side seems to be obsolete? In my understanding Key:* shows the "official" ways to map something. The crossing= has a approved new guideline, and that is what I expected here as a user --Cbm 17:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

btw. the WIKI-site from Approved_features/Road_crossings said The Feature Page for this approved proposal can be located at Key:crossing. . so Key:crossing should be changed. --Cbm 04:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If Gravitystorm doesn't come up with any real reasons why we shouldn't revert this page, I'm going to do just that. If you want to keep the old tags as shortcuts, fine, but don't keep the new ones from this page just because it's no current usage. The new tags have been approved so that means we want that to become current usage, which isn't going to happen if we don't mention them here. This project is about tagging the world, not the UK, and we can't tag the world with pegasus or toucan crossings as you only get blank stares mentioning those tags outside the UK. --Eimai 12:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be deliberately ignoring my point about why I created this page, and what it's for. If you're ignoring the reasons I've already given (unless you're telling me that I'm wrong about the numbers at the top of this page?)) then how am I supposed to give you "real reasons"? Leave the page alone, it does what it's supposed to (as I've explained above) and if you want another page for whatever reason feel free to create one. Gravitystorm 15:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing those numbers above are wrong, and that it shows how things are tagged upto now. I'm arguing about the fact that this page needs to say how things should be tagged, as that's what been voted on and approved. You're suggesting a new page, but where else should it be than at the crossing=* page? And as said above, if you want the old tags on this page as well, fine then. But don't hold back the new tags just because you personally don't like them. --Eimai 16:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

To be completely honest, there are *no* official tags. Any user is free to choose whatever they want. I don't see how a vote of 10 people should force several hundred uses in the planet to change (perhaps those several hundred should count as votes as well). As far as I know, Gravitystorm is the only person who currently renders crossings of any sort. Perhaps we *should* document the type of crossings that will render on his map. Richard B 17:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

For the third time: if you want to keep the current tags, fine by me. Just don't hold back the new tags. How do you expect the numbers above to change in favour of the new tags if it's only documented somewhere in the proposal pages? --Eimai 17:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

When this proposal came along Approved features/Road crossings, it seems to have been presented as a brand new tag idea, but unfortunately it always clashed quite badly with an established usage (the proposers wouldn't necessarily have been aware of) It's a shame the proposal progressed to the point of half way through the final voting process, before anyone pointed out the problem.

User:Gravitystorm pointed out the problem in a rather heavy handed manner. "Don't mess with this page" is a discussion title which is sure to wind people up (I'm going to change it), and I don't think the person who creates a wiki page should have extra rights to dictate its purpose ....but then again, he is right. This page should have existed, documenting the crossing=zebra usage a long time ago. And it still should. The proposal should have been phrased as a change (by gradual deprecation). And of course changes to established tags are a pain in the ass for obvious reasons. They should not be undertaken lightly, and would be less likely to be voted through.

Voting has passed on Approved features/Road crossings and a fair few people got involved in that, so it is a shame to ignore the result, but the wiki discussion and voting system has not served us well in this case. The main problem really was that people used the crossing tag quite extensively, in the crossing=zebra, but nobody bothered to document it. That laziness is the root cause of the problem, and a lot of people are to blame for that. But I think the solution to this is going to have to be to reopen the proposal for discussion, and rephrase it as a change.

-- Harry Wood 22:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd see no need to reopen proposals, just add a disclaimer on the lines of "Here's a usage that was voted on and additionally here is the documentation of a older scheme, used mostly and extensively in the UK, and which get's rendered at ..." I hadn't given this previously any more attention than a quick glance, but aren't the "old" values just shorthands for a list of multiple tags as laid down by the new scheme? They can easily coexist, especially when documented here. Alv 05:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

New value: crossing = unmarked ?

crossing=unmarked for crossing-abilities even without any road-marks (e.g. for lowerer road-curbs (kerbs) ). --Cbm 00:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Knowing about dropped kerbs would certainly be useful for people in wheelchairs or wheeling prams. --Gregoryw 05:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

it's not only for the kerbs. I know as a pedestrian you are able to cross any road anywhere, but crossing=unmarked shall mark the most recommedable place with less danger (could be very usefull to route "childeren-safing ways to school" or handicaped/slow people. --Cbm 14:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that a bit too subjective and fuzzy? If you can cross safely at a certain point, then you can probably do that as well 50 meters further along the road, and it could well depend on the time of day. I think there should be at least something physical that marks the location (like the lowered kerbs). --Eimai 14:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

[1] in this example you have to cross the street coming from the right to cross the zebra-crossing. this "unmarked" crossing should be mapped with "crossing=unmarked" --Cbm 15:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

wheelchair-accessible lowererd kerbs should be additionally tag with lowered_kerb (or curb?)=yes, I think --Cbm 14:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)