Proposal:Road crossings
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| The Feature Page for the approved proposal Road crossings is located at Key:crossing |
| Road_crossings | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Approved (active) |
| Proposed by: | * |
| Tagging: | crossing=traffic_signals:uncontrolled:no |
| Applies to: | linear |
| Definition: | for better capture the details of a crossing |
| Statistics: |
|
| Draft started: | |
| Proposed on: | 2007-12-29 |
| RFC start: | * |
| Vote start: | 2007-12-29 |
| Vote end: | 2008-05-18 |
This is a proposal for road crossing tags, following discussion on the mailing lists...
It was originally suggested to use crossing=type for things like zebra crossings, pelican crossings, and so on.
Following discussion, in which many people commented that these aren't very international terms, David Earl proposed the following scheme:
| Tag | Description |
|---|---|
crossing=type |
where type could be traffic_signals, no or uncontrolled (the default).
|
bicycle=boolean (yes/no) |
(default is no) A value of yes means that pedal cyclists are permitted to ride across the crossing.
|
horse=boolean (yes/no) |
(default is no) A value of yes means that horse riders are permitted to ride across the crossing.
|
segregated=boolean (yes/no) |
(no default assumed) A value of yes indicates that crossing traffic of differing types is segregated from each other (there is a separate crossing area for each mode of transport). For example, horse and foot traffic is sometimes segregated within a UK Pegasus Crossing.
|
supervised=boolean (yes/no) |
(default is no) A value of yes indicates that the crossing may be managed by a [crossing guard] at busy times.
|
crossing_ref=name |
where name is the traditional, region-specific reference, such as zebra or pelican.
|
Usage
The following table shows how the crossing might be tagged:
| Name | Tags |
|---|---|
| Zebra crossing | crossing=uncontrolledcrossing_ref=zebra
|
| Pelican crossing ('traditional' UK crossing name) |
crossing=traffic_signalsbicycle=nosegregated=nocrossing_ref=pelican
|
| 'Toucan' crossing ('traditional' UK crossing name) |
crossing=traffic_signalsbicycle=yessegregated=nocrossing_ref=toucan
|
| Pegasus crossing ('traditional' UK crossing name) |
crossing=traffic_signalsbicycle=yeshorse=yessegregated=yes (sometimes no)crossing_ref=pegasus
|
| Lollipop crossing | crossing=traffic_signals (or uncontrolled, as appropriate)supervised=yes
|
| Traffic-Signals without a "pedestrian crossing" | highway=traffic_signalscrossing=no
|
Comments
Please use the discussion page for comments.
Voting
I approve this proposal. --Cbm 11:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)- I approve this proposal. (Even though voting hasn't started yet :) --Edgemaster 12:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal.--Walley 12:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Ckruetze 13:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Thewanderer 08:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Dieterdreist 11:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal.
It is inadequately documented in the area of segregated=* and supervised=*.It doesn't describe whether it applies to nodes or ways. (ways would be helpful where the feature being crossed is not one-dimensional). More thought should be put into making it more general, to handle any situation where two routes meet, not just pedestrian crossings. It uses access restrictions in a way contrary to access=*. --Hawke 21:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC) - I approve this proposal. Now that segregated=* and supervised=* make sense to me. I guess I can't complain if the defaults are a bit non-UK-specific --achadwick 23:12, 2 April 2008 (BST)
- I disapprove this proposal. The crossing tag is in widespread use already, and the established use of the tag bears little resemblance to this proposal. The proposal should be updated to reflect the established values used already in OSM. Gravitystorm 21:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I disapprove this proposal. Further to what gravitystorm has said: crossing=toucan or crossing=zebra etc are already in widespread use. crossing_ref would suggest that there is some form of unique number associated with each crossing. Smsm1 22:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Except crossing_ref=*, as it is not seems to be usefull in such way. --LEAn 18:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Eimai 11:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. It is very UK specific and uses access restrictions in a way contrary to access=*. More thought should be put into making it more general. --Chrischan 21:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- you missunderstand this proposal I think. At the moment it's very UK-specific. With this proposal the capturing of road-crossing will be more flexible--Cbm 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. See Gravitystorm for reasons and I think terms used should be a little more international to be understood more easily by non UK-nationals. --Krauti 21:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- What's non-international about crossing=traffic_signals or crossing=uncontrolled? Help me understand --achadwick 12:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This proposal was approved with request of universal values.