Proposal talk:Document pedestrian crossing hierarchy

Traffic signals

By the way, this proposal uses crossing=traffic_light, but crossing=traffic_signals is already very common, so that would seem to align better with the idea of making minor tweaks to the tagging scheme.

I do think an overhaul is needed, though, because it requires a lot of circumlocution to tag some of the most common crosswalk configurations in North America.

 – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 23:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing this typo, fixed. Bkil (talk) 13:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Suggested move

I found this by accident and I would like to move this to Proposed features/Document pedestrian crossing hierarchy to align the naming with other proposals. Any objections? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 12:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea, thank you! Bkil (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Values for crossing=*

Some of the suggested meanings make sense, but don't actually jive with how the tags have been documented and used. As a result, I think parts of this document are doing the opposite of its stated purpose, which is to document current standards and not do any reworking! It's not your fault, the tag spaces for pedestrian data are often pretty bad. Examples:

crossing=controlled: Is almost never used and is undefined.

crossing=uncontrolled: You are right that the term uncontrolled has to do with right of way and protection for pedestrians in the real world. In the OpenStreetMap world, it's been documented as being identical to "this is a marked crossing" for about a decade (I talk about it a bit here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crossing%3Dmarked). As a result, that's also its meaning when it comes to pedestrian mapping. In an ideal world, it should be deprecated in favor of something like crossing=marked and the iD editor already uses this instead - though keep in mind my proposal hasn't been finalized or accepted yet.

crossing=traffic_signals: Does not necessarily imply that the crossing is marked. It's a terrible tag and one that I'm going to propose deprecating (at least on footways) in favor of something that can be tagged separately from whether the crossing is marked.

crossing=island: Is also a terrible tag that nobody really knows how to use correctly. Does it mean the crossing *has* an island, or that the point you've marked *is* an island? It's been documented as either many times. And if it means the crossing *has* an island, why is it a value for crossing=*, implying that a crossing can either have an island or have traffic signals, but not both? I don't have a ready-made solution for this one (it probably requires its own proposal to fix), but it could be useful to include these caveats on this page.

Either way, thanks for starting this page! A guide to tagging crossings and other pedestrian data at intersections is sorely needed!

--Nbolten (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

With crossing:island=yes for tagging the crossing and traffic_calming=island for mapping the structure (if needed), there is a sufficient way mapping crossing islands, in my opinion. Often road is mapped with separate lanes to create islands, too. --Chris2map (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Values for crossing_ref=*

tigger

Is the "gg" on purpose or a typo? Cause of "tiger" being in use already. - In my oppinion, it could lead in confusion and typos using "tigger" as value. Instead I would prefer bicycle=designated for bicycle or bicycle-only crossings. --Chris2map (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

There are at least four independent parameters

Marc, in this message, is right that it's a problem that the marking is not necessarily synonymous with the control. However, there are more independent properties. The possible options span at least the following four dimensions:

1. Who can cross? Pedestrians, bikes, horses, ...
2. Which control is there? None, light with no user control, light with button, puffin control, ...
3. How is it marked? Zebra stripes, tiger stripes, ...
4. Are there any additional features connected to the crossing, such as an island or a Belisha beacon?

As a corollary, the naming of this proposal is inadequate, since (a) it is hard or inadequate to impose a “hierarchy” on several of these dimensions even by themselves, and (b) even if that were possible, it is not possible to combine four dimensions in one hierarchy. (Example: Even if we agreed that a crossing is higher in the hierarchy if it allows more people to cross, and that a controlled crossing is hierarchically higher than an uncontrolled one, who is to say whether an uncontrolled crossing for pedestrians and bikes (aka. ‘tiger’) is higher than a modern controlled one only for pedestrians (aka. ‘puffin’)?)
Of course, an all-encompassing solution would get overly complicated. Given that this will vary significantly between countries, and that in general this information is entered by people familiar with the local rules, it may be best to stick with what we have, with some possible changes as suggested by previous commenters. SebastianHelm (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)