Proposal:Pedestrian crossing as an area
|pedestrian crossing as an area
|Draft (under way)
|Allow mapping of crossings in extreme detail: as an areas
In well mapped areas individual crossings are being mapped.
In some areas people map areas of footways and roads as areas. It is done with area:highway=* and done in optionally in addition to mapping linear centerlines. This is really, really rare, but in some cases it may be useful. Note that in general it is not useful, for example mapping motorways as area:highway=* is in general not useful - mapping lanes and carriageway width is more than enough.
This data is in general much less important than road centerlines, but for some cases it is actually useful. Usage examples include various variants of "highly detailed maps of some area"
- highly detailed maps for local urban-planning purposes
- maps for blind people of a single crossing ( https://github.com/matkoniecz/lunar_assembler#laser-cut-3d-tactile-map )
- orienteering maps for urban sprint competition
All this cases were cases where I actually personally used such map data.
In addition theoretical use includes
- small scale navigation
- 3D rendering
- simulation of traffic (AB Street and similar)
I am already using such tagging (though with a bit different tag names). I was convinced that I am using tagging schema that is not popular (as it is extreme nanomapping) but at least invented by someone else.
I was mistaken as I discovered in https://github.com/matkoniecz/lunar_assembler/issues/26 - sorry.
This tagging would be used in addition to highway=* lines, using it without such data mapped already is a major mistake.
Mapping areas of such pedestrian crossings would not affect other area:highway=* features. If there is area:highway=tertiary mapped - mapping area:highway=crossing would not result in reduction of area:highway=tertiary area, crossing area would be within both area:highway=tertiary and area:highway=crossing
- area:highway=crossing - crossing area
- Who can use given crossing is specified by access tags, access modes not mentioned in tagging are not allowed to use it as a crossing. Access tagging covers access modes using crossing to cross a road, not vehicles using the main road. So pedestrian crossing across motorroad will not have bicycle=yes.
- area:highway=crossing + foot=designated - crossing that can be used only by pedestrians and designated for their use (note that for example young children on bicycles, people pushing bicycles may be legally considered as pedestrians)
- area:highway=crossing + bicycle=designated - crossing that can be used only by cyclists and designated for their use
- area:highway=crossing + bicycle=designated foot=yes - crossing that can be used cyclists and designated for their use, can be used also by pedestrians
More complex cases
highway:crossing=* without access tags is incomplete, access tags should be specified there.
- Require access=no + foot=designated for exclusivity, as usual with access tagging
- Have for=foot / for=foot;bicycle / for=bicycle instead of access tagging
- Have separate tags like area:highway=crossing area:highway=pedestrian_crossing area:highway=bicycle_crossing
- Use area:crossing=*
- That would require extra support from editors that have generic support for area:highway=*
- area:highway=footway + footway=crossing
- tag width instead of using area:highway=*
- scheme added in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Afootway%3Dcrossing&type=revision&diff=2106935&oldid=2085611 as a standard one (it is not as far as I can see), see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:footway%3Dcrossing#areas
- do not map this data in OpenStreetMap
TODO: add photo with marked areas (aerial? from the ground?)
This query will find objects tagged with it worldwide, feel free to review.
- https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2021-May/thread.html#61473 (before drafting of this proposal)
Please comment on the discussion page.
My work on tactile maps was also funded by OSMF (Microgrants/Microgrants_2020/Proposal/Tactile_maps_for_blind_or_visually_impaired_children), but funding run out long time ago. And anyway, paid mapping was excluded from work being funded.
I am planning to continue mapping such maps and look for further funding.
Therefore I am additionally biased and have additional conflict of interest.
Nevertheless I think that such mapping can happen in OSM and benefits overall outweigh negatives.
Plans for this proposal
I plan on going through RfC with it and would welcome feedback.
I am planning to gather some feedback and then switch tagging of areas that I mapped and https://github.com/matkoniecz/lunar_assembler to this proposal.
I am unsure when and if it will go though vote (though Proposed features/remove link to Wikidata from infoboxes may go first)