Proposal:Crosswalk clean-up

Crosswalk clean-up
Proposal status:	Draft (under way)
Proposed by:	Kovposch
Tagging:	crossing:*=*
Draft started:	2022-06-17

Proposal

Settle the debate on tagging crosswalk details.

Rationale

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.

Tagging

Signs

• crossing:signed=*
  • crossing:signed=yes
  • crossing:signed=yes + crossing:markings=no / crossing:signed=only: Signposted-only crossings
  • Can be used to reinforce a crossing:access=no or crossing:access=discouraged
• [TBD: crossing:traffic_sign=*: the official code of the crossing's signs (to de-clutter traffic_sign=* when there are multiple signs for different purposes)]

Markings

• [TBD: crossing:road_marking=*: the official code of the markings, not the human-readable OSM classification in crossing:markings=* (to align road_marking=* with traffic_sign=*)
• crossing:inscription=*: Warning text a la look left/right (not included in crossing:markings=*)

Lights

• flashing_lights=* --> crossing:light=*: Unified with railway=crossing
  • flashing_lights=yes --> crossing:light=yes (+ crossing:light:flash=yes?): Unspecified positive
  • crossing:light=Belisha: Belisha beacon (alternatively implied by crossing_ref=zebra)
  • crossing:light=HAWK: HAWK beacon (has steady aspect; alternatively implied by crossing_ref=HAWK) [TBD: traffic_signals:designation=HAWK instead? (traffic_signals:ref=* for the actual code itself]
  • flashing_lights=no --> crossing:light=no
• crossing:light:lit=* (cf light:lit=*)
  • flashing_lights=button --> button_operated=yes
  • flashing_lights=always --> crossing:light:lit=24/7 (following the opening_hours=* syntax in lit=*)
  • flashing_lights=sensor --> crossing:light:lit=automatic
    • flashing_lights=sensor + flashing_lights=button / flashing_lights=button;sensor --> button_operated=yes + crossing:light:lit=automatic

Traffic control

TBC

• crossing=uncontrolled (in the no traffic control meaning) --> crossing:priority=* (cf Proposed features/Per-lane or vehicle-based priority and signal control for possible use of priority=* with give_way=* and stop=* for different modes)
  • crossing:priority=*: Road type with priority (instead of crossing:priority=* = access:*=* modes to avoid any confusion eg when there is a highway=cycleway crossing a cycleway=no --- who has priority if it is crossing:priority=bicycle? What about pedestrians? Listing out all modes is impractical)
  • crossing:priority=carriageway
  • crossing:priority=footway
  • crossing:priority=cycleway
  • crossing:priority=bridleway
  • crossing:priority=path
  • crossing:priority=uncontrolled: Makes it clear there is no priority installed in place --- This is separate from default rules a la new the Highway Code's priority of waiting pedestrians over vehicles (consistency with junction=uncontrolled) [semi-off-topic: junction:priority=* needed to clean up junction=*?]
• crossing:traffic_signals=* (crossing:signals=* not preferred for potential conflict with existing use, and consistency with traffic_signals=* and traffic_signals:*=* )
  • crossing:traffic_signals=yes: Unspecified positive
  • crossing:traffic_signals=all: All sides including pedestrians have their own signal (similar to give_way=all and stop=all)
  • crossing:traffic_signals=carriageway: Only vehicle signal, no pedestrian signal (similar to give_way=minor and stop=minor)
  • crossing=uncontrolled (in the unsignalized meaning) --> crossing:traffic_signals=no

or

• crossing:signals=*
  • crossing:signals=shared
  • crossing:signals=dedicated
• traffic_signals=*: Use this when there are special signals controlling it, especially traffic_signals=blinker and traffic_signals=blink_mode
• [Off-topic: Deprecate traffic_signals=*_crossing for mid-block --- what about signalized crosswalk slip lanes?]

or

• *way:traffic_signals=* (traffic_signals:foot=* not used due to the possibility of traffic_signals:bicycle=* being unable to handle crossing of a road without bike facilities eg in mixed traffic)
  • footway:traffic_signals=* / sidewalk:traffic_signals=* : Consistency with sidewalk:*:kerb=* (reason: a highway=pedestrian or highway=service access can be combined with the crosswalk)
  • cycleway:traffic_signals=* : Consistency with cycleway:*=*

Fundamentals

• crossing=*: now reserved for existence, as well as any other possible uses as needed.
  • crossing=yes
    • crossing=official
    • crossing=courtesy
    • crossing=unofficial (UK "informal" uncontrolled crossing) : Dropped kerbs only
  • crossing=de_facto ("informal" avoided for confusion with UK "informal" uncontrolled crossing and informal=yes ) : No special provision
    • crossing=informal → crossing:informal=yes : Formed by highway=path + informal=yes
    • crossing:informal=no (may be assumed) : Formed at street corners. An obvious, logical point to cross between non-informal footways. [TBD: {tag|crossing:informal|no}} confusing for pedestrian desire paths?]
  • crossing=no
  • crossing=separate on highway=traffic_signals: When a highway=crossing has been added separately
• crossing:access=*: Legality

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 https://assets.ctfassets.net/xfhv954w443t/5eayyHb0YjG2ezjXs1Iuch/7263bf055bfde66b57892f87eada1ff8/Side_Road_Zebra_Legal_Advice.pdf

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

• footway=crossing_island [TBD: Applicability to long sidewalk-like sections inside diamond interchanges and intersections]
• footway=crossing_access: Resolve the question of footway=crossing vs footway=sidewalk on the section between sidewalk and roadway. (to complete OpenSidewalks style; footway=link to be used for other purposes)
• [TBD: "Buffer" --- Berlin/Verkehrswende/Gehwege crossing:buffer_marking=*]

Examples

To be updated

Markings

• https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/428214296695144458/978926012400287764/unknown.png highway=crossing
  • crossing=formal: Makes it clear this is not an informal crossing=unmarked
  • crossing:markings=no
  • crossing:priority=footway

• https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/428214296695144458/978927171424878592/unknown.png highway=crossing
  • crossing=informal?
  • crossing:markings=no
  • crossing:inscription:left=Look right->
  • crossing:inscription:right=<-Look left
  • crossing:priority=uncontrolled
  • [TBD: When not splitted]

Caption text

Example	Tagging
Bottom-left: The "stop" with crossing pedestrians	highway=crossing crossing=formal crossing:markings=no crossing:priority=footway crossing:inscription:left=Look right-> crossing:inscription:right=<-Look left
Example	Example
Example	Example

Tag:crossing=unmarked#Tricky_cases

Example	Tagging
Crossing with traffic signs and traffic_calming=table, without zebra crossing or traffic signals. 6482603799 6482603799	highway=crossing crossing=informal? crossing:markings=no crossing:signed=yes crossing:priority=uncontrolled
Note that in at least some cases crossings of driveways with sidewalks were also marked as highway=crossing and in such case crossing=unmarked would be the best fit - if such place would be considered as taggable with highway=crossing	highway=crossing crossing=informal + virtual=yes?
Unmarked place where pedestrian cross while following sidewalk along, with lowered kerbs. Is it highway=crossing crossing=unmarked? osm node	Example
Road interrupting footway, crossed here by pedestrians. Is it qualifying as highway=crossing crossing=unmarked? 9161017171 9161017171	Example
Crossing with distinct surface, without road markings. Is it crossing=unmarked or crossing=marked? 6484582867 6484582867	Example

Legality

https://files.slack.com/files-tmb/T010L3KMNSE-F028KK61RB6-0da352f204/oudan_720.png

Features/Pages affected

• Deprecated
  • Control
    • crossing=uncontrolled
    • crossing=traffic_signals
  • Visual device
    • crossing=marked
    • crossing=unmarked
    • flashing_lights=*
  • Special
    • crossing=informal
    • pedestrian_scramble=*
    • crossing_ref=pedestrian_scramble
    • continuous_sidewalk=*
    • sidewalk=continuous
    • continuous_cycleway=*
    • cycleway=continuous
• Created
  • crossing:priority=*
  • crossing:traffic_signals=*
  • crossing:inscription=*
• Modified
  • highway=crossing
  • footway=crossing
  • crossing=*
  • crossing:light=*
  • Continuous Sidewalk

External discussions

Previous discussions

• Proposed features/crossing=priority
• https://discord.com/channels/413070382636072960/428214296695144458/978807939508883566
• https://osm-japan.slack.com/archives/C010YQPUJJZ/p1626531015203500
• https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2022-August/029307.html 9967297149 9967297149
• https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:crossing&type=revision&diff=2421754&oldid=2418477

Comments

Please comment on the discussion page.