Continuous footways (sidewalks, pavements)

[Mateusz_Konieczny]

"Their path continues without interruption, while from the perspective of a vehicle travelling along the crossing road, there is a clear break. "

So if both cycleway and road is continuous (asphalt on both, no curbs) then it does not count as continuous crossing?

[osmuser63783]

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.

[Allroads]

@osmuser63783

it’s usually clear which of the two is continuous.

How does the road knows, that he is not continuous?

[Minh_Nguyen (Minh Nguyễn)]

@osmuser63783

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!

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:

@Minh_Nguyen

When a bike trail or bike-hike trail crosses a road, there’s usually a stop sign to tell trail users to wait for vehicles. But some trails give the right of way to trail users instead, so the streets have stop signs combined with plaques to warn drivers that cross traffic doesn’t stop. Notice how the street appears continuous in terms of pavement, but the stopping rules are completely different.

[Mateusz_Konieczny]

@osmuser63783

Do you have an example?

road/cycleway both are at the same level, just that cycleway is narrower than road

of former road x road crossing with one of roads converted to cycleway

(no photos for now, sorry)

[osmuser63783]

@Minh_Nguyen

Without any such indications, another possibility is that it’s just an intersection rather than a crossing,

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

[osmuser63783]

I’ve edited the proposal. On the question of nodes and ways, it now simply says

The tag can be used on nodes (with highway=crossing) or on ways (with footway=crossing). It has the same meaning on both.

@Allroads

How does the road knows, that he is not continuous?

This is described in the proposal as follows:

from the perspective of a vehicle travelling along the crossing road, there is a clear break. Typically, this means at least a kerb (e.g. kerb=lowered) and an obvious surface change (e.g. from surface=asphalt to surface=paving_stones) and often also a rise in level (so the crossing also functions as a traffic_calming=table).

[osmuser63783]

@Nadjita

My only beef is segregated=yes on the crossing node. That key isn’t defined on nodes.

Quick question.

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?

[Nadjita]

@osmuser63783

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