Proposal:Crosswalk clean-up

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Crosswalk clean-up
Proposal status: Draft (under way)
Proposed by: Kovposch
Tagging: crossing:*=*
Draft started: 2022-06-17


Settle the debate on tagging crosswalk details.


Visual device

It is unclear whether a crossing=unmarked is an informal crossing, or an official one with other treatments (eg signposted only, surfacing only). [TBD: Difference with courtesy crossing]

It is unspecified how to deal with signposted-only crosswalks.

[TBD: LPI signalling]

It is desirable to maintain uniformity with railway=crossing, although the two have differences.

Method of control

Although I'm personally fine with crossing=uncontrolled to refer to ones without any traffic control (ie signals, give-way, and stop), it is true "controlled" and "uncontrolled" can have conflicting meanings even in official terminology. In some UK offical text, the former can mean signalized, the latter unsignalized.

This is not to be used to map to default legislation of pedestrian priority in your country. It is only for when there are markings and signs indicating so.

*:foot=* was considered. However *:bicycle=* may cause ambiguity on direction/side along a major road with bikepath while the intersecting minor road doesn't, and only shares the carriageway.

Existence vs legality

crossing=no is unclear on whether there are no crosswalks, or it is illegal to cross the carriageway, *=use_sidepath only necessarily refers to longitudinal travel along the road.

Specials crossings

There is no consensus on tagging scramble crossings yet. For crossing_ref=pedestrian_scramble, it is not really a special type on its own so to speak, compared to others.

continous_sidewalk=* is in my view quite a awkward tagging. It is more of a theoretical concept to achieve in planning and design. sidewalk=continous is slightly strange of an attribute to define. (cf Proposed features/Footpath types and Sidewalk parts)

Crosswalk as line

Ideally footway=crossing would only be applied on the length of the actual crosswalk on the roadwalk. What about the section on sidewalk and refuge island? For the former, there are patterns on footway=sidewalk being used, or footway=* not being added entirely.

footway=traffic_island is not the clearest on whether any highway=footway on a traffic island can be used (eg median or frontage carriageway sidewalks), or specifically refuge islands.


Visual devices




Traffic control





Where it is prohibited to cross, crossing:access=no should be used to avoid conflict or misunderstanding as access=no at the location (may cause problems with routers; may overlap with a barrier=*) or on the road). Similarly for crossing:access=discouraged. On the contrary, access=private can be added to employee or otherwise restricted highway=crossing [TBD: eg at toll plaza where signs warn of staff crossing the road] or railway=crossing, and resident or employee only highway=footway.

Report based on TRL research and legal advice

Special crossings

  • crossing:scramble=*
    • crossing:scramble=yes Don't use on de facto ones, ie all sides cross on the same signal stage allowing unofficial diagonal movements, but there is no special markings. It may be illegal, and can be unsafe (lacking provision on time needed to cross diagonally), to not follow the straight crosswalk markings. (TBD possibility to expand on signaling, ie this, LPI, protected vs permissive, etc)
    • (Maybe possible to use highway=crossing + crossing:scramble=* on single carriageway intersections as a short-hand / first-step to show it has crosswalk on all 4 sides but is not a scramble crossing?)
    • [TBD: Shibuya crossing has one diagonal only, not whole-scramble marking --- {{tag|crossing:]
  • TBD "continous sidewalk"

Crosswalk as lines



Features/Pages affected

External discussions

Previous discussions


Please comment on the discussion page.