Talk:Proposed features/Traffic island

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


I think only yes as value is not sufficient enough. If I have a big crossing with different lanes for left/right and straight, I often have several highway=traffic_signals and then one island and one or more highway=crossing for the opposite way. --Skyper 12:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not support my proposal any more. The only way to tag traffic islands correctly is to split up the parallel ways. Lulu-Ann
May be abandon it and do not link to from the crossing-wiki-page. Cheers --Skyper 13:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I assume this was regarding an older version of this draft? Should we move this comment to another section if so, or mark it was fixed/sorted? --Pobice 19:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If a traffic island (an area in the middle of the roadway elevated with curbs) or other such barrier (unpaved median, bumps, painted markings) affects routing, I draw separate ways for each direction. I do not mark the island itself. If the island is only ornamental and doesn't affect routing, I simply ignore it. Generally, an island affects routing only if it prevents a left turn from/to any cross street (including mapped driveways and other service ways). I agree, withdraw the proposal. --T99 09:26, 20 June 2011 (BST)

I suppose when you say "routing", then you mean "routing for vehicles" and nothing like "routing for pedestrians", "routing for blind people", "routing for wheelchairs". Because the latter ones could benefit from a more detailed mapping. --NobodysNightmare 08:43, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Replacing crossing=traffic_island

Given this is micromapping, time consuming and arguably quite a small object to map accurately based on gps data I think replacing is too strong a word, you may just put people off from mapping them.

I've also got concerns on how it will look on the map. Its going to be a tricky thing to draw and will require some clever map rendering. But if you've got the patience to properly survey and map like this good for you. --Pobice 23:08, 18 October 2010 (BST)

I don't care how it looks on the map. I don't map for the renderer. The pedestrian navigation for the blind will read it properly! --Lulu-Ann 12:11, 19 October 2010 (BST)
Can we have a mapped example then to see how it will work in practice? Isn't mapping crossing=traffic_island better than nothing?--Pobice 15:09, 19 October 2010 (BST)
Surely crossing=traffic_island is better than nothing, but it causes semicolon separated entries and inconsistencies, and it is worth nothing. Sighted users will find their best places to cross the street easily. They gain no advantage from mapped traffic islands. Blind users do! --Lulu-Ann 13:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Completing with surface=x tag

Some traffic islands are paved, other have a dirt, grass or wood surface. Adding a surface=* tag can be important for routing pedestrians and bikers. --Sanderd17 14:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is especially important if the paving of the street and the traffic island is different enough to be detected with a white cane. Everybody please upload the photos of your traffic islands. --Lulu-Ann 13:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts

I've mapped several in Argentina, always splitting the ways so as to have a better routing, map view and a more real survey of what really exists. Several of them I've tag-ed them with leisure=common, I know its wrong, but I did not find a better way to differentiate them from a regular block.--Beerforfree 12:43, 11 June 2011 (BST)

Make a Traffic Calming Tag?

I've started using traffic_calming=island as a point and a line. Maybe we can combine these two and get a vote started. --Panther37 16:12, 17 April 2012 (BST)