Proposal:Continuous crossings
| Continuous crossings | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Approved (active) |
| Proposed by: | Osmuser63783 |
| Tagging: | crossing:continuous=yes/no |
| Applies to: | node  , way 
|
| Definition: | A path continues uninterrupted across a road. |
| Draft started: | 2023-10-29 |
| RFC start: | 2023-10-31 |
| Vote start: | 2023-11-30 |
| Vote end: | 2023-12-14 |
Proposal
- Introduce new key, crossing:continuous=* with values "yes" and "no"
- Deprecate crossing=pavement (undocumented, 1023 uses)
- Deprecate continuous_sidewalk=yes (abandoned, informal proposal from 2020, 529 uses)
Rationale
There has been a lot of discussion on how to tag continuous footways, where a sidewalk continues uninterrupted across a side road.
The closest, widely established tags we currently have are perhaps crossing=unmarked and crossing:markings=surface but typically they are used when the pedestrian or cyclist needs to cross a section of road (more precisely, the carriageway). In case of a continuous footway, it is cars that have to cross a section of the sidewalk. Therefore neither of the widely established tags captures the concept well.
Some mappers have used crossing=pavement to express the idea, but the British English term "pavement" is confusing to people who use a different variety of English. Spot checks found that most, if not all uses of this tag in the UK are for continuous sidewalks, but the tag has been used in France, the US and Australia to mean something more like crossing:markings=surface, i.e. a crossing that is marked only by a change in paving material (from the perspective of a car).
There is an abandoned, informal proposal from 2020 to use continuous_sidewalk=yes. In the discussion on the talk page it was questioned why an entirely new key was necessary, instead of fitting into the existing scheme for crossings.
I started a discussion in the community forum on the topic. Neither of the existing tags was favoured by mappers. Various alternatives were considered and eventually we settled on crossing:continuous=yes. This has several advantages:
- it is not limited to sidewalks but can be used when a (segregated) cycleway, a footway other than a sidewalk, or even a pedestrian street continues uninterrupted across a road
- instead of overloading crossing=* further, introducing a new key means it is orthogonal to other crossing tags such as crossing:markings=*
Tagging
A continuous crossing, also known (depending on location) as a continuous sidewalk, footway or cycleway, is a type of crossing design where a path (e.g. highway=path, highway=footway or highway=cycleway) continues uninterrupted across a road (e.g. highway=residential).
As a result, vehicles have to cross a section of footway or cycleway, instead of pedestrians or cyclists having to cross the road.
A continuous crossing may or may not have markings, tactile paving, a (typically flush, if it exists) kerb or any of the other properties commonly found on crossings. What matters for deciding whether a crossing is continuous or not is the overall visual impression: There is no, or very little change in surface for the pedestrian or cyclist. Their path continues without interruption, while from the perspective of a vehicle travelling along the crossing road, there is a clear break. Typically, this means at least a kerb (e.g. kerb=lowered) and an obvious surface change (e.g. from surface=asphalt to surface=paving_stones) and often also a rise in level (so the crossing also functions as a traffic_calming=table).
The tag can be used on nodes (with highway=crossing) or on ways (with footway=crossing). It has the same meaning on both.
| Key | Value | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| crossing:continuous | yes | A path continues uninterrupted across a road. |  |
| crossing:continuous | no | The path is interrupted as it meets the road. |  |
In some cases, it may not be obvious which of the two highways is the "path" and which one is the "road" (e.g. when a very wide highway=cycleway meets a highway=pedestrian). In such cases, the value of the highway=* key can be put in crossing:continuous=*, to indicate which of the two highways continues without interruption, e.g. crossing:continuous=cycleway. However, the tag is only for pedestrian and cycle crossings. It is not intended for use on road intersections.
Examples
| Example | Tagging |
|---|---|
|
|
A continuous footway. A very detailed approach to mapping this situation would be:
In this example the change in level for vehicles on the side road is very subtle, so the crossing probably does not qualify as a traffic_calming=table. The give way lines could be mapped separately. In practice many mappers would likely omit some of these tags. Simply tagging the crossing as highway=crossing and crossing:continuous=yes should not be considered "wrong" but merely a less detailed description. |
|
Both the footway and the cycleway continue uninterrupted across the side road. Although there is a minor rise in level for the cycleway, there are tactile pavings on the footway (on the right) and the paving stones on the footway look subtly different, the overall visual impression is still that the footway and cycleway continue and it is the side road that is interrupted. If the footway and cycleway are mapped as a single way (highway=path with bicycle=designated, foot=designated and segregated=yes), then a very detailed method of mapping this situation could be:
Again, many mappers would likely omit some of these tags. |
Note: The tagging suggestions above are for illustration only, to show situations where crossing:continuous=yes could be used.
Other examples
Example of continuous crossing in France ("trottoir traversant").
Example of continuous crossing in London.
Counterexamples
Not a continuous footway, but a raised zebra crossing, because the road surface continues. Should be tagged with crossing:markings=zebra, crossing_ref=zebra and traffic_calming=table.
Not a continuous footway. There is a clear break and surface change for both the road and the footpath. Use crossing:markings=surface instead.
_2022-05-01.JPG)
Notes on usage
- When the road that crosses a continuous sidewalk is a minor service road, such as a driveway or a car park entrance, there is community consensus that this is not worth tagging explicitly; instead the node should simply be left without any tags.
- Although this tag should be used whenever this visual design is present, its legal implications differ around the world. Continuous crossings may or may not imply pedestrian priority over vehicles. Similarly, when used for sidewalks crossing side roads, they may or may not imply that vehicles entering the main road from the side road have to give way to vehicles on the main road. Data consumers will need to infer any implications for traffic rules based on the jurisdiction.
Rendering
When a footway meets a road (as an example), renderers typically draw a continuous road on top of the footway, creating a gap in the footway. If the tag crossing:continuous=yes is present, they could instead show a gap in the road and a continuous footway.
Features/Pages affected
- crossing:continuous=* will be created
- highway=crossing and similar pages will be updated to link to it
- Continuous Sidewalk will be marked as deprecated
External discussions
- 2023 (the discussion that led to this proposal): https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/continuous-footways-sidewalks-pavements/104410
- 2023, in German: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/sind-aufpflasterungen-traffic-calming-table/101791/
- 2020: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Continuous_Sidewalk
- 2020: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-January/050557.html
- 2018, in Dutch: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/uitritconstructie-hoe-verwerken-onderdeel-van-openbare-weg/83365
Comments
Please comment on the discussion page or in the community forum.
Voting
Voting on this proposal has been closed.
It was approved with 32 votes for, 1 vote against and 1 abstention.
Thank you all for your comments.
I approve this proposal. Well thought out, based on community discussions and clearly described and illustrated. Fills a gap and leads to more clarity in crossing tagging. Have recently tagged some continuous crossings in this way and have not found any practical hurdles. Due to the variety of possible crossing designs and their legal implications around the world, I think the description is fine - a narrower definition will hardly be possible. Controversial issues such as the question of which tags should be used redundantly at crossing ways must be clarified separately from this proposal, which is why the proposal is intentionally left open here. --Supaplex030 (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)- I approve this proposal. --Nadjita (talk) 11:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I've already gave my opinions before but I repeat that I particularly like the counterexamples when not to tag a continuous crossing. Will immediately implement them on the two crossings I showed in the proposal thread once accepted. --ManuelB701 (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Luisluigi639 (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Mcliquid (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --MiMoHo (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Chris2map (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Useful for a common occurrence. I do wonder if something should be worked out about whether footway=crossing should be used at all for these cases, because by definition there is no specific crossing for the pedestrians (it is actually the road which is interrupted and crosses the sidewalk, rather than the other way around). Often the extent of what is the 'crossing section' of the sidewalk is not necessarily clear either with continuous crossings. --JeroenHoek (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Endim8 (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Weidner (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Well thought out, and improves the ability to represent different types of crossings in OSM --Willkmis (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. -- Something B (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --AntMadeira (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Waldyrious (talk) 08:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --JassKurn (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --OSMRogerWilco (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Daniel F. (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Nuffy (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Flo Edelmann (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Well documented proposal that makes it clear how to use the tag in most occations. However it is still ambiguous how to tag a crossing which is continuous both for pedestrians and for vehicles, e.g. both road and sidewalk are paved with asphalt and there are no curbs neither where the carriageway meets the sidewalk nor where the sidewalk meets the carriageway. --VileGecko (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Kjon (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Emilius123 (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Nacktiv (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. In OpenStreetMap crossings are generally tagged on the ways doing the crossing, so to speak. When mapped as a way, a crosswalk is a break in footways with special tags to describe how it crosses a street. If a sidewalk is truly continuous, I would strongly prefer that we break the vehicular street with a highway=crossing way, rather than the other way around. I worry that crossing:continuous=* is a step backwards in terms of making OSM less car-centric.– Jacobwhall (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Jacobwhall: At a conventional crossing, the footway would be interrupted by a highway=footway footway=crossing, not a highway=crossing. So I take it your suggestion would be highway=residential road=crossing or somesuch. As JeroenHoek points out, it may not be necessary to use a footway=crossing way in conjunction with this tag; this proposal allows but doesn't require one. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 07:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Minh Nguyen: Yes, thank you for the correction. road=crossing or similar would make more sense to me. Where a road in the U.S. "crosses" a crosswalk in the usual fashion, isn't that continuous? Continuity should be represented by no interruption in a way; the way doing the crossing should be interrupted. – Jacobwhall (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- Please forgive my waffling, I have decided to vote against this proposal for the reasons stated above. – Jacobwhall (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Jacobwhall: In theory, yes, though unfortunately it's impossible to distinguish that approach from a conventional crosswalk where mappers just haven't gotten around to splitting out a footway=crossing yet. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 20:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --CaldeiraG (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Britzz (talk • contribs) 14:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Mycota (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. Not opposed in principle, but needs better documenting for many real-world cases, especially when there aren't any clear breaks, surface changes, etc. The current wording and examples are very first-world urban-centric. The proposal sounds like it's complete because it's saying the same thing over and over, but it's actually missing edge cases and examples while using a lot of subjective language like "visual impression" - something that doesn't play nice with verifiability. --HellMap (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- @HellMap: Thank you! I would welcome more examples (though I have mostly encountered this design in the first world, in urban settings). Osmuser63783 (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --scai (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Selva (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. —Gymate (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Tolstoi21 (talk) 10:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --TheBlackMan (talk) 05:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
