Thanks! Is that a real street or a (shared) driveway? I’m asking because the issue of driveways came up and people agreed that in that case the node should just be left bare. For the proposal / Wiki page I looked for pictures where it’s very clear that it’s an actual street, so if we add the picture to the proposal the street type should be mentioned.
Good point. The proposal already mentions that there isn’t usually a kerb across the path (though I’ve seen flush kerbs). I’ll add that there will be a (lowered) kerb across the road.
When I looked for pictures, a rule of thumb I used was that it’s definitely crossing:markings=surface if there is a clear surface change for both the driver and the pedestrian. But the line between that tag and crossing=unmarked isn’t always so clear, see @Minh_Nguyen’s comments earlier.
I’ve already seen an example where someone encountered a continuous crossing and answered “No, but crossing is possible” (which puts crossing=informal on the node - not at all intended). If the proposal is successful I’ll suggest to the SC developers that they add an option like “The path just continues without interruption”.
It’s tagged as a residential highway and I think that’s fair. It’s named and has houses on either side, even though it has block paving. I can photo another very plain example https://maps.app.goo.gl/uWB9n2ypwQakprmq9 which is like a link road to a residential road (so is also tagged residential) which had me wondering because I hadn’t tagged it as a crossing but then the StreetComplete quest had me wondering how best to handle it…
Yes, and if I didn’t know the tag it would apply I think that would have been my instinct.
It’s not the “official” term for continuous footways in the UK. It appears to be a term put forward in London. Don’t think there is specific official term, and there could be variance for the different countries that make up the UK.
Correct, it’s what some London Borough Councils use, but the Waltham Forest page is useful as an illustrative reference for their appearance and position of road markings.
I can’t see the Department for Transport in England doing anything to standardise them any time soon, as it might be seen as part of “the war on cars”.
I’ve been asked to clarify if the tag can be applies to nodes, ways or both.
This is a tricky one because there are different mapping styles for crossings. Some mappers put crossing tags (such as crossing:markings) on the highway=crossing node and the way only gets highway=footway, footway=crossing and typical way tags (e.g. surface) (example). Other mappers duplicate the crossing tags on the way. Yet other mappers do not tag the node at all (example way with untagged node).
Therefore I suggest the following:
The tag can be used on nodes (with highway=crossing) or on ways (with footway=crossing), but there should be no need to use it on both for a single crossing. When a highway=crossing node is present, it is considered sufficient to just tag the node with crossing:continuous=*.
I appreciate that you’ve considered the issue of these different crossing representations, but I wonder if preferring the tag on the node only would add to the confusion. As it is, many mappers simply try to keep the tags consistent between the two elements. This is pretty easy to do in iD, for example by selecting both and clicking on each “Multiple values” label in the raw tag field. But mappers are already getting confused because of the rule that tactile_paving means something different on the crossing node versus the crossing way. This doesn’t give me much confidence about a rule that crossing:continuous should go on one but not the other.
Additionally, the practice of mapping the crossing as both a node and a way simultaneously is mainly for backwards compatibility with data consumers that aren’t capable of converting between these two representations. If the two representations aren’t equivalent, then this compatibility shim is less effective and we may not be able to deprecate it for even longer.
I see your point and I’m inclined to agree. To be honest I am just trying to introduce a new crossing tag here, I’m not trying to settle the question about whether crossing tags, in general, should go on nodes or on ways. These are two separate issues that I don’t really want to conflate: A vote for or against the proposal shouldn’t be seen as a vote for or against putting crossing tags on nodes or ways.
The phrasing I suggested is the result of some discussion between me and a fellow mapper who suggested that my proposal “should take a clear stance on double tagging by discouraging it”… which I am reluctant to do for the reasons above!
While I agree that this is generally a good suggestion, it should not be in the scope of your proposal. The tagging makes sense on both, the node and the way, and would mean the exact same thing.
I took part in the original Dutch discussion mentioned in this topic and in the proposal.
I like this solution. It can be added very easily to existing crossings, without breaking anything. It does not try to incorporate rules and regulations in the tagging; it just records the obvious which can easily be verified, often from aerial photography.
I’m looking forward to the creative renderings that I’m sure will follow approval!
Do you have an example? In my experience, when a cycleway meets a road, it’s usually clear which of the two is continuous. It would be quite dangerous if it wasn’t!
In this example there is no kerb and no difference in surface material (both are asphalt), but I wouldn’t consider it a continuous crossing.
Without any such indications, another possibility is that it’s just an intersection rather than a crossing, sort of like this case earlier that is definitely not one of the urban crossings that we’ve been focusing on:
I agree, good point. When a road meets another road, then that’s a road junction / intersection to me, even if one of the roads is now only or mainly for bicycles. Here is an example (the road is actually highway=residential bicycle_road=yes not cycleway). If the road was narrower and tagged as a cycleway, it would still be the same I suppose?
The proposal is for a new crossing tag, junction designs are out of scope
segregated=yes has been documented since 2008 on the Key:crossing page, for highway=crossing nodes. It has been used about 7,000 times on such nodes, and about 17,000 uses on footway=crossing ways. Any objections to me updating the page for Key:segregated?
Sorry for the late reply, but I had (and still have) a lot of private stuff going on right now. No, nothing against it, but please excplicitly mention that the use case is for highway=crossing-nodes. And thanks for puishing this
