How should legal restrictions on existing crossings be mapped?

General talk Tagging general discussion
,
41

Exactly. The sign is telling you to cross only at the crossing (node 1 and 10 in my example).

42

A picture was posted a few posts above… by Minh… How should legal restrictions on existing crossings be mapped? - #35 by Minh_Nguyen

43

I’d like to help there, but you know your country trafic laws, so you gotta decide.
In my land of potato you are legally prohibited to cross a dual cariageway by foot and so cross it only on marked crossing.
So here those NO CROSSING signs are not necessary, because it’s already forbidden.
You can however ride your bike across, or even motorbike or possibly car depending what painted line signs are present.

How do we map it:

  • If it’s continuation of say informal path, i assume it’d have to cross with a way both of those highway lines and continue to something else across
    • or just end connecting to the highway itself, because you can ride a bike over those highways as well.
    • of course if there is a fence, no bike or other vehicle traffic so argitrary way is not necessary there
  • over section of that way where it crosses the dual cariadgeway i’d set access foot=no
  • i wouldn’t tag any access over the crossing nodes, because maybe the sidewalks are tagged over the highway and a node with disallowed access like this owuld prohibit foot traffic along it, not just across.

If routings ever start routing across the street for foot or bike traffic in arbitrary spots like this one…

  • basically they dont right now, exactly because of situation like this one. They can not know if the fence is there and if it isn’t someone might have forgotten to map it.
  • if law on crossing is not that straightforward, I expect that sections of highway streets should be tagged if at this section those can be crossed or not
    • this tagging logic would be very similiar to overtaking allowance or not
44

thank you, in this case I think in the jurisdictions I am used to, the sign would be superfluous because you are not allowed to climb fences that restrict access to streets. (even if the barriers are much easier to climb than this one)

45

Yes, in both of the examples given earlier (in California and Washington State), local law technically prohibits jaywalking even across an undivided street (single carriageway), but the No Pedestrian Crossing signs are there for emphasis and extra safety. If you cross anyways, it would help justify any traffic citation.

It’s sort of analogous to a No Left Turn sign that’s redundant to a One Way sign. But redundant No Left Turn signs are posted at predictable locations, whereas these No Pedestrian Crossing signs are unusual for being posted midblock, as if the authorities have given them special attention.

A more typical application of the No Pedestrian Crossing sign is at a street corner where, for whatever reason, a marked crosswalk exists on three sides but there’s no crossing on this side. This is a situation where I’d imagine a crossing=no would be uncontroversial even to a European unfamiliar with the signs.

Out of curiosity, do any Vienna Convention countries have an analogous No Pedestrian Crossing sign? Or is the whole premise of this thread foreign to those countries? I’ve been under the impression that crossing=no is applicable worldwide, but the U.S. uniquely posts a sign that corresponds to the same concept. We might use it more frequently because of the sign, just as Vienna Convention countries tag vehicle=no much more frequently than we do in the U.S. because of the :o: sign that they have and we don’t.

Admittedly, Hedding Street is a bit of an extreme example. The sign is literally steps away from police headquarters, a courthouse, three jails, the sheriff’s office, a national guard station, and several bail bond agencies. Maybe the sign actually means No Skipping Bail? :grimacing:

2 Likes
46

They are far more common on railway tracks and are often nonstandard of various variety

See say

1280px-Illegal_railway_crossing
1280px-Illegal_railway_crossing1280×960 510 KB

with text “stop, 2 people died here and 2 were injured” and “track crossing forbidden” sign

(people still cross there as there is massive detour to cross it safely, due to both road and railway being designed in communist times)

47

afaik there is no “no crossing” sign, but there is a no pedestrians sign similar to yours, there can be barriers (illegal to climb over even when it is “easy”) and there are certain road types where you may not walk or cross (motorways and motorroads), and it is generally forbidden to walk on railway tracks or cross these outside of dedicated crossings. There are also free form signs e.g. in railway stations to emphasize the no crossing restriction of railway tracks. And in some jurisdictions at least, it is illegal to cross a street without a crossing if you are within a certain distance from a marked crossing (e.g. 100m), i.e. you must use marked crossings if you are close.

1 Like
48

Better than standard of various variety:

Imgur

2 Likes