Looking at OpenStreetMap for the western side of McCulloch Street (not far from where I live), at: OpenStreetMap , I note that a number of “highway=crossing” nodes have been added in the past where the footpath (highway=footway & footway=sidewalk) crosses private driveways for houses (highway=service & service=driveway).
Out of curiousity, are such nodes suitable for these intersections or are they intended more for road intersections and other cases where paths cross public roads?
If they are tagged correctly then why not? On the other hand some mappers feel that highway=crossing should only be for “street” crossings (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcrossing), however we define a street. I have stopped bothering to put them on anything that has a service tag.
The ones on McCulloch Street are not particularly helpful, as they are bare highway=crossing, which I can tell by the fact that one way is crossing another. Unless you are going to put in the crossing tag you are not really adding value.
Highly likely added when using iD, which shows as an error if a crossing isn’t tagged.
I just tried in iD. It prompts you to automatically add a highway=crossing.
1 Like
1 Like
Thanks for the links, Andrew - interesting discussion.
What makes this McCulloch Street example curious is that there are similar private driveways on the opposite (eastern) side of the street but no lines added for the driveways and therefore no nodes added where the footpath crosses the driveways.
As an example of how it perhaps should have been done, I’ve had a look at Queen Street, Mornington, and where common property / shared private driveways cross a footpath, there is just an untagged node (done by someone else).
I agree that the “highway = crossing” nodes would be better suited to where foothpaths / shared paths cross public roads.
Regards, John
Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying the driveways have not been mapped?
iD prompts you to add a connecting node, but adding the highway=crossing tag is only one of the options these days. You can just as easily add a bare connecting node.
The options only changed for when a sidewalk crosses a driveway. That seems to be the case in the original post, unless I’m missing something.
A foot path is a “sidewalk” isn’t it? That’s what they are called here. Does iD call them something else? I would assume this is the option people would choose.
Specifically, iD offers the option to put down a tagless node if a highway=service service=driveway crosses a highway=footway footway=sidewalk without a connecting node, which is what the original post linked to. iD’s Australian English localization calls the latter “Footpath (alongside a road)”. If it were tagged just highway=footway, the preset would be called “Walkway”. You seem to be using the American English localization, based on your screenshot of the highway=footway preset labeled as “Foot Path”.
Is that only if the footway is also tagged =sidewalk?
Position is OpenStreetMap if you want to see further details?
The version of the warning you’re seeing only appears because the highway=footway way is missing a footway=sidewalk tag. There has been considerable discussion about how to strike a balance between acknowledging a potential vehicle-pedestrian conflict and avoiding noise that dilutes a tag needed for more substantial crossings:
1 Like