Talk:Key:crossing:markings

What about rainbow crossings?

Hi, there are many LGBTQ-pride related crossings nowadays which have crossings with rainbow-markings or other LGBTQ-flags (example: https://imgur.com/35k8cBi). How should those be mapped? If there is clarity about this, the corresponding MapComplete-theme should be updated to reflect the new tagging (and the old values should be retagged). Pietervdvn (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Have you read Talk:Proposed_features/crossing:markings#Marking_vs_pavement? --- Kovposch (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I did now, but I didn't see a clear-cut answer between all the talk about the paving stone and the direction of the stripes. Pietervdvn (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this is an issue not limited to crossings. For example, how do we tag a rainbow coloured cycleway (such as this one from Utrecht featured in a BicycleDutch video). I think if we want to clearly tag these, a proposal of suface colours would be needed.

On the other hand, some are more mural like, and would probably be best to tag them tourism=artwork --Popball (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended rainbow colors

@Pietervdvn: There's already some limited usage of colour=rainbow, though this article prefers surface:colour=* for crosswalks, since I guess colour=* could be ambiguous when highway=crossing is dual-tagged with something else. Regardless, you might be interested in the rainbow=* key that I've been using to clarify which colors are part of the rainbow pattern. (I'm doing the same on some nearby sidewalks too.) – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 22:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

How about we split it into different cases? Case 1: The photo in the Examples section of the main page (link), and the two on this page (1 2) should each be thought of as two different objects in the same place: a set of crossing markings, and an artwork. Notice that the regular markings still exist; the rainbow is just painted between them. This is presumptively very deliberate, as the main page points out: "the white lines are still required for it to be a legal crosswalk (in the US)." So those ways/nodes should be tagged crossing:markings=* zebra/lines/whatever, crossing:markings:colour=white, tourism=artwork, artwork_type=mural, and surface:colour=rainbow. Case 2: In the non-photo rainbow images on the main page (1 2 3) (are there any real-world examples?), the regular crossing markings are absent, completely replaced by the artwork. So they should still get tourism=artwork and artwork_type=mural, but this time with crossing:markings=rainbow. Just "rainbow," not variations like "lines:rainbow" or "zebra:rainbow;" TagInfo reports 24 existing uses of "rainbow," and one each of two of the variations. Incidentally, crossing:markings=rainbow ought to imply both crossing:markings:colour=rainbow and surface:colour=rainbow. Case 3: Any markings with a completely ordinary shape but rainbow colours (again, are there any real-world examples?) should have the same crossing:markings=* value as their non-rainbow counterparts, plus crossing:markings:colour=rainbow. I'd argue that the artwork tags shouldn't be applied in this case. --Adambyte (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

2. Following 1. should use crossing:markings=surface + surface:colour=rainbow , rather than crossing:markings=rainbow . --- Kovposch (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The main page says that crossing:markings=surface is for when the surface, i.e. the material that the floor is made of, has changed. That is not true in case 2; rather, the rainbow is painted on top of the same material. --Adambyte (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not what it means in this case. Below, it is noted this is a response against crossing:markings=solid , which is paint. Somewhere else, brick patterns printed on the same paving material File:Construction_of_a_crosswalk_using_polymer_modified_cement_slurry.jpg (this photo has crossing:markings=lines legally) was also discussed. Different surface:colour=* already qualifies. Or crossing:markings=surface:material and crossing:markings=surface:colour could be suggested.
crossing:markings=* should only be used for officially markings. At most I can accept a crossing:markings=mural to distinguish.
--- Kovposch (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

So a "surface" can also mean the paint, if the entire area is covered in paint? If so, then I agree that crossing:markings=surface + surface:colour=rainbow makes sense. --Adambyte (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@StenSoft: Has this been discussed recently? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Acrossing%3Amarkings&type=revision&diff=2498409&oldid=2496820 --- Kovposch (talk) 07:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect illustration

The illustration used for the article shows crossing marking styles using different terminology than the actually approved and used values (e.g. what's called zebra in the illustration would actually be tagged as ladder:skewed, continental is zebra, standard is lines, solid is surface, etc...) Woazboat (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Woazboat: This illustration comes from a study funded by the Federal Highway Administration surveying local highway departments across the U.S. about the crosswalk marking styles they use. The American traffic engineering field has more or less standardized on the terms in this study, except for the "solid" style, which turned out to be a misnomer for surface treatments like brick pavers. Indeed, what Europeans call a "zebra" crossing is what Americans call a "continental" or "striped" crosswalk; "zebra" instead refers to the slanted version. The proposal originally adopted these terms but moved away from them as a concession to mappers used to existing tagging schemes. It would've been very confusing if crossing=zebra had to be translated to crossing:markings=continental instead of crossing:markings=zebra. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 23:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Ideally someone could upload a modified version of this SVG that replaces the American English terms with crossing:markings=* values. Alternatively, this intersection diagram depicts four different marking styles at the same intersection, though there's a lot going on in the diagram, so I don't think it would be very intuitive at a small size. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 23:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I updated the image to . I kept the values in lowercase to match the actual tagging. Wardmuylaert (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Painted "Bricks"?

I have seen a few crossings painted with a pattern of brick-shaped outlines. They are not actually bricks/paving stones, just a grid of paint. In the examples I've seen, it has a "brick colored" edge, with a white filling. I cannot find examples at this moment that are on open imagery, but here's a blog post about some: https://wallingfordseattle.blogspot.com/2008/06/crosswalk-art.html

You can also see it on these crosswalks on other street image sources: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/39.27720/-76.61071

Is this just an outlier case, or should there be a value for it? — pkoby (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The border can be crossing:markings=dots legally. The brick drawing depends on #What about rainbow crossings? above. --- Kovposch (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Pkoby: If it's a one-off artistic design, then I'd tag it as a piece of artwork in addition to crossing:markings=dots. The dots are already highly unusual for an American crosswalk, but they did have to paint something in white in order to qualify it as a legal marked crosswalk. That said, I'm reminded of this crosswalk and many others in the same neighborhood that are painted with a honeycomb pattern in addition to the legally recognized parallel lines. I used crossing:markings=lines;honeycomb in these cases, since they appeared to be intended to mimic a standard treatment, albeit still nonstandard. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 17:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Checkerboard painting

I have come across this kind of painting: Mapillary

It is a crossing used by both pedestrians and cyclists.

In my native language, French, this drawing pattern is commonly called damier which means checkerboard. So I've tagged it with crossing:markings=checkerboard (plus crossing:markings:colour=green).

As it is told on the main page: "More values may be documented as they are discovered", so I propose to add this value.

Of course, if this type of drawing is better known by another name in English, this one will prevail. --Blef (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Blef: If that's a normal marking style in France, then checkerboard seems perfectly reasonable to me. Though I think it's called a "draughtboard" in British English (compare sport=draughts). – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 23:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

French "passages cloutés"

In France — and in Switzerland or Belgium — there used to be a lot of « passages cloutés »: the literal meaning is a nailed passage, it's a type of pedestrian crossing delimited by two parallel lines of slightly rounded nail heads or rivet heads. It was so frequent that the term is still sometimes used as a generic meaning for a pedestrian crossing, even if it's a zebra.

Nowadays « passages cloutés » are way less frequent but you can still find some — e.g. in the historical center of some cities, or near some tramway lines.

• 

  Old "passage clouté" in Paris in 1939

• 

  Modern "passage clouté" in Lyon

While it kind of looks like the painted "crossing:markings=dots", I think it's still somehow a bit different as the convex metal parts are usually round and can be slightly protruding from the surface (which is usually asphalt or sett).

So I'm wondering if I should tag them as something like "crossing:markings=nailheads" or if another tagging would be better? Maybe "crossing:markings=dots" + "crossing:marking:material=metal"? -- FoeNyx (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

They are called "studs" in English in UK. They are interchangeable white painted square blobs. Therefore crossing:markings=dots . Proposal talk:Crossing:markings#Markings vs studs
crossing:markinsg:material=* is reasonable. But in general, need to consider the case of bricks. Eg example photo 5 File:Fireman's Park crosswalk.jpg may be confusing to have crossing:markings:material=paving_stones (correct?) for the edge line, together with surface=paving_stones for the non-legal surfacing, causing mistakes around crossing:markings=surface for new users not understanding what it means.
—— Kovposch (talk) 10:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that that confusion is avoidable. The facts are intrinsically nuanced and confusing, so the tags can't accurately represent that without also being confusing. Maybe we should revise the description for the "surface" entry in the values table on the main page, to explicitly warn against conflating the legal markings with a surface that they may bound, and link down to the Fireman's Park crossing in the examples section. (I think that should be crossing:markings:material=concrete, though, because the entire line is one solid block.) —Adambyte (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)