Talk:Tag:highway=crossing

bridge/tunnel

How to map a crossing NOT on the same level? Like a foot bridge over a single lane street. Just add bridge=yes or tunnel=yes? -- unsigned

I would mark it as a footway and bridge. Since they don't actually intersect, it's not exactly a crossing. -- Phyzome (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, in such case highway=crossing is not used Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Crossing multiple ways

Noting that crossing is not to be used on a way, how is one supposed to mark that a single crossing crosses more than one way ?

Having a single crossing and drawing the ways converging and then diverging would look really messy.

It is an unusual circumstance but I've found one ! http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/387752604 --pmailkeey

If there is more than one carriageway then you map multiple crossings. If single carriageway was incorrectly split into multiple parallel ways (what should happen only in case of physical separation, not based solely on painted lanes) then it needs to be fixed Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Why only nodes?

The wiki page suggests to only tag nodes with highway=crossing. It is good to see that already over 1000 ways have been tagged with this, and it feels natural that a physical zebra between to points are tagged as such. Secondary this greatly simplifies finding optimal routes for pedestrian routing.

As a crossing is defined as a crossing between two lines, I think it makes sense to map it as a node. Mapping the zebra as way is micro-mapping and if going that way better also map the width, so use an area but leave the way for routing purposes. -- Emvee (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Saw there is a method to map the width of the crossing/street, see kerb=* -- Emvee (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

highway=crossing with bicycle=no

What is the meaning of "Notice that bicycle=no is only appropriate if all the ways crossing are not accessible to cyclists"? [1]

Note that foot-only crossing of road where cycling is allowed qualifies for bicycle=no Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I see that earlier edit description had "Notice that bicycle=no is very unlike unless two footway's are crossing" what seems to claim that footway-only crossing (that may appear on cycleway!) must not be tagged as bicycle=no if it crosses road where cycling is allowed. This seems to be not matching actual tagging Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I changed Wiki page to "Notice that crossing tagged with bicycle=no may be crossing road where cycling is allowed" for now, but I would be happy to discuss how it is tagged, how it should be described and so on Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the text as it is now "Notice that crossing tagged with bicycle=no may be crossing road where cycling is allowed" is pretty confusing because it is basically saying nothing ("it may") so as it is now I think it is better removed.
The text from me that was there before is also debatable, but I see crossings mapped with bicycle=no while a bicycle may cross the crossing. Typically those are a crossing with a footway and a normal road and the normal road is accessable to cyclists. I am happy if somebody comes up with something more clear then "Notice that bicycle=no is only appropriate if all the ways crossing are not accessible to cyclists" -- Emvee (talk) 07:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

"I see crossings mapped with bicycle=no while a bicycle may cross the crossing. Typically those are a crossing with a footway and a normal road and the normal road is accessable to cyclists" - this is a correct tagging. It describes crossing itself as not usable by cyclists to cross the road and is not specifying anything about road itself. Such tagging is useful in cases of footway/cycleway usable by cyclists where they are obligated by law to dismount on crossing. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I added an example to page Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The way things are changed now are not correct and unnecessary:

1. For Routing, routers will look at the crossing tags, so if some cyclist comes from west, using the Aleja Jana Pawła II and wants to go into the Stanisławy Wysockiej they will pass the crossing, is that not allowed?
2. If a footway is crossing the road, a cyclist is already not premitted to cycle on that footway, so bicycle=no is unnecessary and only in a very few cases bicycle=no makes sense.
3. Would you add motorcar=no to this crossing? If not why then bicycle=no

That is what I wanted to add in the first place, let's debate what is a good text -- Emvee (talk) 07:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

1. "if some cyclist comes from west, using the Aleja Jana Pawła II and wants to go into the Stanisławy Wysockiej they will pass the crossing" - yes, it is allowed
2. "if a footway is crossing the road, a cyclist is already not premitted to cycle on that footway" - not true everywhere, for example here. Cyclists are allowed to use this footway during night when max speed on road is raised (I have not added bicycle:conditional on footway, but east side has cycleway) and during adverse weather. Also, I can provide a better example with highway=crossing + bicycle=no within cycleway or footway with explicitly allowed cycling or with bicycle=yes - fortunately nowadays such cases are fairly rare in my area.
3. "Would you add motorcar=no to this crossing? If not why then bicycle=no" - because cycling on footway is at least sometimes legal and there is no case where motorcar would be allowed to drive on sidewalk and not allowed to drive from sidewalk, across crossing and into next sidewalk (normal vehicles are not allowed to do both, some special vehicles such as ambulance are allowed to do both) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for answering all the questions, too often people only answer what they like to answer. Added numbering to ease discussing.

1. So if this is allowed, why then bicyle=no on this node that in the route?
2. it seems like you wanted to link an example, but I do not see that. Good luck finding an example, I am pretty sure things are always better fixed placing the right tags on the crossing paths/roads.
3. If cycling on footway is legal, add bicycle=yes to the footway=* or make it a path=*, for many countries incl. Poland it means pedestrains and cyclists are allowed

All in all, the more I think about this the less reasons I see to add bicycle=yes/no to highway=crossing ---- Emvee (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

1. "So if this is allowed, why then bicyle=no on this node that in the route?" Because you are not allowed to cycle through crossing - you are obligated to dismount (yes, it requires special handling of topology to apply penalty for bicycles using crossing to cross road and to not apply penalty on road)
2. So you propose to add bicycle=no on short section of footway crossing road? I admit, it makes more sense, though I am pretty sure that using highway=crossing + bicycle=no is standard tagging
3. I agree in general, sadly this specific place is a bit special. I will find better example soon Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

1. To make myself absolutely clear, I took some time to make a picture of the route I am talking about. Are you saying that if I cycle the purple route from left to bottom I should dismount crossing the green footway[2]?
   
2. Yes, bicycle=no on the footway is better, but uncesseray, a footway=* is by default forbidden for cycling. And no, highway=crossing + bicycle=no is not standard tagging, it is used rarely (0.24% of all nodes with highway=crossing have bicycle=no) and quite often wrong in the same way as I try to explain under 1) or unnecessary because the crossing ways are already forbidden for cyclists.
3. Good luck seaching, the only good but completely unnecessary usage I found is when a footway does cross a road where it is forbidden to cycle -- Emvee (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

1. No. Only when cycling from footway through crossing to footway you must dismount
2. Sorry for Google street view (I was there recently but I forgot to take a photo): cycling on footways is legal (as rules of park on both sides of road allow this, cycling on road and through crossing is legal, cycling from one sidewalk through this crossing to sidewalk on other side is illegal. OSM link) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
3. See above Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

1. So this is the reason the node should not have bicycle=no, proper bicycle routers look at the bicycle=no tag and conclude this is not a valid route or the route is given a penalty because to cross that crossing you need to be a pedestrian and you can do that by dismounting. If you want to try, try brouter and press Show detailed route data table and study the results. See also brouter issue #265.
2. So if the problem here is that cyclists may not cross using way 25148732 but the may cycle from the park onto Franciszkańska? By adding bicycle=no to the crossing node you still "have to dismount" to do that so this is also not a good way of doing things. If you really want to do this, the only valid option is using Relation:restriction I think. -- Emvee (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

"See also brouter issue #265" - thanks, I commented there

"may cycle from the park onto Franciszkańska" - I am unsure about legality about this specific maneuver Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

It does not matter for the discussion if you may or may not cycle from the park onto Franciszkańska. If you may bicycle=no on the crossing is not a solution, if it is not allowed it is just a matter of removing "bicycle=yes" from way 25148732 -- Emvee (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Standard OSM tagging?

In the brouter github issue you write: Using highway=crossing bicycle=no to express "you must not cross road here while cycling, but cycling on road is not affected" is standard OSM tagging.
No, that is not standard tagging, it is the wrong way of adding bicycle restrictions as there are always better ways to do it, see the discussion above. What is your source for saying it is standard tagging? -- Emvee (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

It is widely used and when I asked in past it was described as the standard way of marking such crossings. If you want to get more varied replies from bigger audience you can ask for example on on tagging mailing list. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not call 0.24% widely used, that is in the same order you see for example for bicycle routes that go incorrectly over ways without bicycle access, see Way access mismatch relation route=bicycle. In absolute terms there are (Aug 2020) about 10.000 crossing with bicycle=no of which I think about 30% (so 3000) are incorrect, ways having access mismatch for route=bicycle are about 50.000. -- Emvee (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Have you checked what is popularity of alternate ways for tagging this? It is 10k uses, bicycle=no on footway=crossing has 7k and will not work anyway for cases where sidewalk/cycleway is tagged as a road property. It is fairly rare, mostly because this situation is incredibly stupid and indicates poor road/law design Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I checked, see my previous comment, "about 10.000 crossing with bicycle=no of which I think about 30% (so 3000) are incorrect", taginfo was also linked. For roads where sidewalk/cycleway is tagged as a road property, the exact same story holds that bicycle=no is either wrong or unnecessary. -- Emvee (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Short summary

The discussion above is pretty long but helped me to get a better view. Below a short summary.

Given this crossing:

What is the meaning of bicycle=no when added to highway=crossing? It means that cyclists going from A to B can not cross but also cyclists going from C to D can not cross, that is not correct.

If the the highway=secondary is tagged with bicycle=*=no/use_sidepath, bicycle=no is not wrong but unneccesary tagging because you are already not allowed to cycle on highway=footway and also not the secondary highway because of bicycle=no/use_sidepath

Emvee (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

"but also cyclists going from C to D can not cross, that is not correct.", - in case of such tagging it means that "cyclists going from C to D can cycle without dismounting". Yes it can be surprising and tricky to process Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I am planning to add this summary to the page itself, let me change the wording to "but also cyclists going from C to D can not cross it cycling', that is not correct." -- Emvee (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

With such tagging it means that you can cycle through C to D without dismounting Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your summary, conclusion and recent edits to OSM Wiki page. I posted on tagging mailing list to get more feedback (maybe I am one that is misrepresenting consensus). If it turns out that what I presented as consensus is actually a shared opinion I will revert your edits to this page Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It is clear we are not in agreement and in that sense I welcome more people looking at this, I just subscribed to the list. I did al ready have some contact with mappers on this issue privately and followed the discussion on the brouter issue so I know at least what some others think. -- Emvee (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I hope that someone else will reply to the thread, if not then I will reply with request for more comments - what will also give you chance to respond to a new email Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

For others, the thread can be found as What does bicycle=no on a node means?

Mateusz has removed this short summary with the comment "restoring bicycle=no (based on talk page discussion and tagging mailing list discussion) - feel free to add info that it is currently unsupported by Brouter and describe an alterbative tagging (splitting cycleway and having footway section)"

I am not againt reverting it for now but while this is still being discussed the the page should be reverted further to the point before Mateusz started to make this bicycle=yes/no related changes. -- Emvee (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The long discussion on the email group seems to make it clear that most uses of crossing= with bicycle=yes/no are intended by mappers to have the meaning which is currently described on the page: "to tag whether crossing is also a cycleway crossing used by bicycles. Notice that crossing tagged with bicycle=no may be crossing road where cycling is allowed". So I support the current wording. --Jeisenbe (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Is Including a Node and Way for Crossing Violation of One Entity- One Object Rule

My question is if I should map nodes onto crossing ways. I was under the impression that this would lead to duplication of information (a way and a node indicating crossing is occurring). How should I understand this?--IanVG (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is violation of that rule. As I understood, initially it was tagged only on node, later people wanted to map on a way, mapping on nodes never really went away and people sometimes use both schemes in the same place Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes @Mateusz Konieczny: I see that the node is often mapped on the way as well pretty often, in fact, I believe I saw an example posted on slack the other day. Would it be appropriate to copy paste that picture here to make sure we are talking about the same thing?--IanVG (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes (@IanVG:). On topic of double tagging, see also for example https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/issues/2347 Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Golfer Crossing

This came up on the tagging mailing list -- how would one tag a golfer crossing? (Such as: [3]). --ZeLonewolf (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

See Examples in Key:golf_cart for how to tag. This should probably be added to this wiki page. --Lectrician1 (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

When should a sidewalk/service-road crossing be tagged with highway=crossing?

The intersection of a sidewalk with a service=driveway or service=parking_aisle doesn't feel like a crossing to a pedestrian, so mappers seem mostly not to map them. An intersection with an service=alley feels more like crossing a bigger road, and so I'd be more likely to tag that. The difference might be whether it seems like cars are clearly crossing a pedestrian realm, vs pedestrians crossing the cars' realm. It'd be nice if the wiki page would discuss when to tag these crossings. --Jeffrey Yasskin (talk) 05:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

If we tag them, none of the existing crossing=* values apply well. They're not crossing=marked with any paint, but when the car is driving over the sidewalk, they're also not crossing=unmarked. The experience is a bit like a traffic_calming=table, but that's not actually what's been constructed. Again, it would be good for the wiki to give some guidance. --Jeffrey Yasskin (talk) 05:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Jeffrey, as far as I understand, the crossings you talk about all fall under the "unmarked" type; a kerb is not a mark. You are right, insofar as this makes that type quite meaningless in practice. Especially, it fails to address, who has priority. On a traffic calming table, in the jurisdiction where I live, cars have, while on a driveway across a sidewalk, pedestrians have. A new value for key crossing looks desirable? --Hungerburg (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The first line of the wiki page says "This tag is for the location of a street crossing", in my view a driveway crossing the sidewalk is not a crossing. Most properties will have a driveway mapped from the road, crossing the sidewalk and leading to the residence and to tag each of these way intersections as highway=crossing doesn't seem right compared to the existing use of highway=crossing for places where you can cross from one side of a road to another. --Aharvey (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The kind of ways at the crossing is already tagged, so everybody can see that the crossing is between a footway and a driveway. The situation is the same: you cross a street to get to the other side, in this case the other side of a driveway. Admittedly I do not tag these crossings because a common node also states there is a crossing, and if it isn't marked in any way, the only benefit of an explicit tag is to mark it as "unmarked", which otherwise would be probable but not sure. --Dieterdreist (talk) 07:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess I see a distinction between crossing a road and crossing a driveway, with a crossing on highway=primary you're crossing the road because you're walking along the sidewalk and need to get to the sidewalk on the other side, but with the intersection of a service=driveway and footway=sidewalk, you're never crossing to the other side of the road, you're staying on the same sidewalk, just you reach a point where vehicles may cross your path, so I don't see this intersection node as the same kind of feature. But regardless, as a data consumer I can always just check the type of ways crossing so I guess I can still exclude them. --Aharvey (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think they do not fall under crossing=unmarked. In what manner are they marked? Adavidson (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if you're aware but this issue has been discussed quite a lot on the community forum, most recently in July, here. Osmuser63783 (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't know, thanks for posting! Pretty much the whole discussion has already taken place there. Aharvey (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Change of the definition of highway=crossing from pedestrian crossing to "path" crossing

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway%3Dcrossing&diff=prev&oldid=2273543 Was this change discussed? This change of definition also changes the default access values from foot=yes (exclusive) to foot=yes, bicycle=yes, horse=yes. This has an effect to all existing crossings in the dataset. --Langläufer (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems the change was not discussed, or not enough. And it creates a problem in countries where pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders do not have the same legal status. (For instance, in Belgium, cyclists are "vehicle drivers" according to law, and are therefore excluded from most infrastructure for pedestrians unless explicitely allowed; changing the basic assumptions for common tags can have unwanted consequences.) Bxl-forever (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Pedestrians' traffic signals?

"crossing=traffic_signals - regulated with light signals"

Wait just one minute. There are two kinds of traffic signals.

Ones that are for cars, and that pedestrians can also refer to, because the intersection is so very simple. And everybody who lives in the town agrees that there's no read need to put a redundant set of signals in just for pedestrians when the ones for cars are good enough for everybody.

The other kind is the Walk and Don't Walk signals exclusively made for pedestrians, which of course are in the addition to the signals made for cars that are usually also present at the intersection.

So the two cases need to be distinguished! Jidanni (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Being discussed Talk:Proposed features/Crossing signalization#Signal use --- Kovposch (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)