Proposal:Key:crossing:island
| crossing:island=* | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Approved (active) |
| Proposed by: | SelfishSeahorse |
| Tagging: | crossing:island=* |
| Applies to: |  
|
| Definition: | Used to specify whether a pedestrian crossing has a refuge island |
| Statistics: |
|
| Draft started: | 2017-11-26 |
| RFC start: | 2018-12-21 |
| Vote start: | 2019-01-09 |
| Vote end: | 2019-01-23 |
Proposal
The key crossing:island=* is used to specify whether a pedestrian crossing has a refuge island (also known as pedestrian island).
This key is an alternative to the problematic tag crossing=island (see Rationale).
Tagging
The crossing:island=* key can be used on a pedestrian crossing mapped as a node (highway=crossing) or a way (highway=footway + footway=crossing). Possible values are yes and no. It is recommended to further specify the type of the pedestrian crossing using the crossing=* key.
Rationale
The presence or absence of a refuge island is independent of the presence or absence of traffic lights and/or road markings.
However, the crossing=* key – which is used to specify whether a pedestrian crossing has traffic lights (crossing=traffic_signals), is only marked (crossing=uncontrolled) or is unmarked (crossing=unmarked) – is currently also used to specify whether a crossing has a refuge island: either with crossing=island or by combining traffic_signals/uncontrolled/unmarked and island with a semicolon, e.g. crossing=island;uncontrolled. This leads to the problem that it's not possible to explicitly state that a pedestrian crossing doesn't have a refuge island. Furthermore, the more popular tag crossing=island doesn't indicate whether there are traffic lights and/or road markings.
With the proposed crossing:island=* key, the information about the presence or absence of a refuge island is moved out of the crossing=* key, solving these problems.
Current usage
Proposed tag
| crossing:island=* |
Current tags
| crossing=island | |||||
| island;uncontrolled | uncontrolled;island | island;traffic_signals | traffic_signals;island | island;unmarked | unmarked;island |
External discussions
- Wiki: Island *or* Traffic signals ? (2009–2017)
Comments
Please comment on the discussion page.
Voting
I approve this proposal. --Nacktiv (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)- I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 09:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. –SelfishSeahorse (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. It fixes a long-standing problem, indeed --Bxl-forever (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I'm fine with standardizing the property, although I'm a bit reluctant to approving: it could have been made clearer how to apply the tag and how to explicitly map and tag a crossing island, and how this tag relates to it. I understand it as a way of saying there is an island at this crossing, but usually a crossing island would imply that the road has to be split into 2 carrigeways at this point, how would you proceed in this case? Would there have to be a crossing object for the whole crossing (both footways to the island), what would you do if both footways had different properties (e.g. surface, or one has a traffic light the other not)? --Dieterdreist (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Splitting a road into two one-way sections just because of a refuge island usually isn't done and would lead to a strange representation of reality in my opinion. And surface is better tagged on
footway=crossinganyway. –SelfishSeahorse (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Splitting a road into two one-way sections just because of a refuge island usually isn't done and would lead to a strange representation of reality in my opinion. And surface is better tagged on
- I approve this proposal. I approve this proposal. It simplifies the mapping of crossings --Kh4nev (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Brian de Ford (talk) 11:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I love thisǃ Now, well just need a crossing:signals=yes/no proposal. --LeifRasmussen (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Tordanik 15:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. though it would be even better to have image of tagged geometries to match image (echoing Dieterdreist comment) --Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- You're both right. Please see here for a diagram that depicts the intended tagging of the situation in the picture above. –SelfishSeahorse (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Władysław Komorek (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Fizzie41 (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Dr Centerline (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Waldhans (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Mueschel (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Nw520 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. LeifRasmussen is right, we also need a subkey for light control or on patterns (zebra...). Even if I'm not sure that in one country/state we may have different patterns --Nospam2005 (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Michi (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. It seems to me a simple and clear way to map crossings with traffic islands and it solves the problems related to crossing=island --Alesarrett (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal.I dislike any kind of tagging with colon tagsAeonesa (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)- I approve this proposal. --Kazing (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Cg909 (talk) 09:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. This feature is important to tag, but I think this scheme is not ready for implementation yet. Adding crossing:island=yes to a way feels very unnatural and might be too easily confused for a raised pedestrian crossing. How should multiple islands in one crossing be tagged? How should this tag be used when the island is not located in between two road lanes, but between the car and cycle lanes in the road (creating an island on either side of the road)? How should this tag be used when the road lanes are split into two one-way sections, for example because there is already a physical barrier between both lanes? How should an island be tagged that connects multiple pedestrian crossings (eg there is three "arms" connecting to the island)? Can this tag be used in combination with micro-mapping where the physical dimensions of the island are drawn? Should there be a distinction between physical islands and ones that are just painted on the road? In all, I think this is based on a too simplistic view of refuge islands. --Pbb (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --TheBlackMan (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --CMartin (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Thetornado76 (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Tux67 (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
RESULT Total votes: 26 Required 74% majority: 20 In favour: 24 Against: 2 The proposal has been APPROVED.