Proposal:Tag:flashing lights:design

flashing lights:design
Proposal status:	Voting (under way)
Proposed by:	Pietervdvn
Tagging:
Applies to:
Definition:	The design of a flashing light above a pedestrian crossing
Statistics:
Draft started:	2026-01-18
RFC start:	2026-01-18
Vote start:	2026-02-05

Proposal

This tag is to be used with flashing_lights=yes to indicate the precise design of the flashing lights and will rewrite the definition of flashing_lights=* as any device with flashing lights that serves to warn oncoming traffic of a potential danger and which does not serve to regulate traffic.

This will also allow traffic_sign=* + flashing_lights=yes to indicate that a flashing light is integrated of placed on the pole of the traffic sign. Up till now, flashing_light=* is only used in the context of a highway=crossing

Some types of barriers (such as barrier=traffic_calming or barrier=sump_buster might also have flashing lights, and will get flashing_lights=*

Rationale

There are multiple types of flashing lights in use - sometimes even with legal repercussions. Sometimes, contributors want to tag the type of flashing light and abuse crossing_ref=* for this (e.g. crossing_ref=hawk or crossing_ref=rrfb as used in the US, hence poluting that tag.

Tagging

Caption text

Tag	Applicable country	Description	Image
flashing_lights:design=belisha_beacon	UK, Ireland, Commonwealth	A Belisha beacon (/bəˈliːʃə/) is a yellow-coloured globe lamp atop a tall black and white striped pole, marking pedestrian crossings of roads.
flashing_lights:design=standard	*	A plain, orange flashing light. Note that the signal face (the drawing on the light) is not relevant for this tag.
flashing_lights:design=traffic_sign	*	The flashing lights are integrated into the traffic sign	Flashing lights integrated in a traffic sign A flashing light mounted just above the traffic sign
flashing_lights:design=rrfb	US	"rectangular rapid flashing beacon
flashing_lights:design=road_surface_bulbs flashing_lights:design=road_surface_strip	*	There are flashing lights embedded in the road surface, either as bulb or as a led-strip. Might also be found around barrier=traffic_calming or barrier=sump_buster objects (Note for the proposal - I've used 'road_surface' as 'pavement' is american english and can be confused with sidewalk; i've also opted for _bulbs and _strip, as this felt more as a design instead of a location)
Please, add relevant examples

Possible tagging mistakes

HAWK-beacons (US)

The hawk-beacon functions as a traffic light, except that it has flashing red/amber instead of green/orange/red. Cars must stop in one phase and are allowed to continue in another phase. As such, traffic_signal=hawk is more appropriate.

Other sources

https://ctre.iastate.edu/research-synthesis/intersections/flashing-beacons/

Features/Pages affected

• flashing_lights=* will be broadened to include traffic_sign=* and be linked from
• Crossings will receive a link to this tag

External discussions

The first mention of flashing_lights:design=* was mentioned in this forum post. Earlier posts in the thread mention the desire for this tag, albeit with a different key.

The thread introducing this proposal is here The thread introducing the vote

Out of scope

Signal face

The signal face is the icon on the traffic light or the flashing light. It typically depicts a pedestrian, a cyclist, a car or an arrow. Signal faces can be implemented by painting on the traffic signal, by using a removable lens or by having the light itself be constructed out of multiple small LED-lights, in a certain pattern.

A non-standard (and probably non-legal) signal face

A 'signal face' constructed by LED-lights

Comments

Please comment on the discussion page.

Voting

Instructions for voting

• Log in to the wiki if you are not already logged in.
• Scroll back down and click "Edit source" next to the title "Voting". Copy and paste the appropriate code from this table on its own line at the bottom of the text area:

To get this output	you type	Description
I approve this proposal.	{{vote|yes}} --~~~~	Feel free to also explain why you support the proposal!
I oppose this proposal. reason	{{vote|no}} reason --~~~~	Replace reason with your reason(s) for voting no.
I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. comments	{{vote|abstain}} comments --~~~~	If you don't want to vote yes or no but do have something to say. Replace comments with your comments.

Note: The ~~~~ automatically inserts your name and the current date.
For more types of votes you can cast, see Template:Vote. See also how vote outcome is processed.

• I approve this proposal. Pietervdvn (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Unresponded problems: Meaningless *=standard naming ; *=traffic_sign , and *=road_surface_* are mixing 2 different aspects, which should be support=* / lamp_mount=* / *mount=* + *=bulbs vs *=stripe separately. flashing_light=* is an overlapping attribute with light:flash=* from light:*=* in light_source=* . Personally and ideally crossing:light=* can be expanded for use, similar to how crossing=* is used on both railway=*crossing and highway=crossing at the same time. -- Kovposch (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. In line with Kovposch (talk) Nospam2005 (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I agree with Kovposch (talk), especially the point about *=standard. If "standard" can have so many variations, I wouldn't deem it standard. pkoby (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. See Kovposch Lejun (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I agree with this proposal in principle and mostly agree with its details. Unfortunately, some changes at the end of the RfC period make this scheme unworkable. According to the examples, the difference between standard and traffic_sign is whether a traffic sign accompanies the flashing light, but this detail should not be the focus of a subkey about the design of a flashing light. I think there was some miscommunication about the meaning of lights integrated into a sign. I provided clearer examples in the RfC thread and look forward to voting in favor of a revised proposal. [1] – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 16:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Refer to above comments by Kovposch and Minh Nguyễn, especially regarding standard. --Lumikeiju (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
• I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. Maybe too complex for such rare cases. --Caboulot (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. While I like the general idea and goals of this proposal, I have to agree with the concerns from the users above, especially regarding standard --Flo Edelmann (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2026 (UTC)