For a crossing node, I can’t find a way to explicitly tag a cycle crossing. The implicit interpretation of highway=crossing seems to be a pedestrian crossing. I don’t know if my observation here is correct, but it seems that way.
What can I do to tag a node explicitly as a cycle crossing?
Stumbled on such a case today and decided to just draw the way from the cycletrack on one side of the road to the other.
Of course no one will stop you from doing the manual tagging, ignoring the presets…
bicycle=designated
highway=crossing
Would not tag foot=no, just leave it off.
I do not see a reason why to tags a crossing as bicycle specific, the crossing ways will/should convey all that is needed.
Some crossings are marked as cycle crossings, which carry legal obligations, some are simply a physical space in which a travelling cyclist may cross.
Well, tag on crossing:markings=dots;surface whatever established values which identify the specificity of the crossing. Here the cycle crossings are typically with red surface sometimes lined with square white dots or just the dots. Also there’s 2 traffic signs at times when combod with a separate foot zebra
The problem isn’t tagging the markings, it’s tagging that the crossing is a cycle crossing and not a pedestrian crossing.
For those you can use Tag:cycleway=crossing.
That tag is explicitly not for use on nodes, OP asks for tagging on crossing nodes.
Though I do agree, such crossing should be tagged with a way if possible. It’s very likely that a highway=cycleway already crosses the carriageway.
I do create crossing ways. Creating crossing ways is my main interest here, because they provide the information that I need for my purposes.
But there’s also people who need tagging on the nodes, and I don’t disagree that this is also a wise thing to do. So I try to satisfy both at the same time.
There is one instance of crossing=cycle_crossing. That might be something to adopt. I’m not aware of any established tagging for nodes, only for ways.
this does not apply in case when cycleways and sidewalks are mapped as road properties
My view: If a footway crosses a road or cycleway, it’s a pedestrian crossing. If a cycleway crosses a road, it’s a bicycle crossing.
In itself, this doesn’t require any tagging at all. Access, including designation, follows from the crossing way (the (s)lower order way). Only if you want to tag a crossing node with details which differ from the crossing way, such as markings, signal control, kerbs, surface, traffic island, tactile paving, only then you would need to apply highway=crossing and the detail tags.
If access (including designation) anly needs to be tagged explicitly if it differs from the crossing way. E.g. if cyclists are allowed to cycle across on a zebra crossing, the crossing node gets a bicycle=yes tag.
Special case: Crossings are often mapped by just putting a node tagged highway=crossing on the crossed way. Without a crossing way, the designation/access of the crossing is not explicit.
In Nederland, we assume that just-a-node crossings are pedestrian crossings; bicycle crossings always are an intersection of a cycleway and a higher order way.
Maybe elsewhere designated bicycle crossings are mapped a a single node on the crossed way; in that case I would tag the node with bicycle=designated.
add bicycle=yes
add foot=no if pedestrians are not allowed to use it
at least that is what I would do in my mapping if I would want to tag it
bicycle=yes is also true for pedestrian crossing (here). foot=no is always incorrect (here).
then adding bicycle=yes foot=no would mark it as a cycleway crossing, rather than a pedestrian one, right?
(this seems reverse situation of my region, in Poland basically all crossings are foot=yes bicycle=no or foot=yes bicycle=yes with very rare exceptions)
foot=no is always incorrect here. Pedestrians are allowed to use cycleways and by extension the crossings.
The literally only exception is the cycle expressway, which is prohibited for pedestrians, but has no crossings…
Also cyclists are always allowed to use pedestrian crossings (albeit with different legal status from pedestrians).
Before we proceed, just a clarification about my term usage here:
pedestrian crossing => a marked pedestrian crossing
cycle crossing => a marked cycle crossing
unmarked crossing => no markings at all, but possible (and intended) to cross here
These all have different rules for the road users involved.
This is not to say that you use these terms to mean that, but for this post, this is what I mean.
It’s not that simple.
We have cycleways ending in a pedestrian crossing, a cycle crossing, or an unmarked crossing.
We have foot- and cycleways ending in a pedestrian crossing or an unmarked crossing.
We have cycleways with sidewalk ending in either a pedestrian crossing, an unmarked crossing or a combined cycle crossing and pedestrian crossing (side by side).
That’s fine: keep regular 13-in-a-dozen crossings as simple as possible, and add tags to express exceptions.
If the crossing path is a footway on one side and a cycleway on the other side, the access for routers is covered by the ways. Markings, if the same on both sides, can be tagged on the node. If different on both sides, you can tag the markings on the crossing sections of the ways.
This is not the issue. I’m primarily trying to tag cycle crossings that have the same way on both sides.
I’m not trying to tag access. Like I’ve said in a previous post, access tags are meaningless in this scenario.
Yeah, but how? How do I make sure data consumers are not interpreting the crossing as a pedestrian crossing with an unknown marking?
you can never achieve that, data consumers can interpret data however they want
you may at most can make data reasonable to process without unnecessary traps