I guess bicycle=designated is the relevant part. Is this for both way and node?
Priority/yield situation is implied from bicycle=designated? Or was that meant to covered by traffic_sign=FI:B7?
But for foot on a cycleway crossing this is not correct. By Europe rules.
The highway column is the only one that makes a distinction between node and way. I’m thinking the traffic_sign=FI:B7 is a “this is what we really mean” tag, as all of this is basically how to code crossings marked by that specific sign. The way I read it, that’s the only one that implies priority, as that’s what the sign means.
The wiki page doesn’t at the moment address priority directly at all (e.g. tagging the impact of stop or yield sign on cycleway crossings or yield signs used on cycleways). Not sure if that’s in the intended scope of the proposal.
@Tolstoi21 would be the person to clarify further.
I don’t disagree. So we’ve (presumablyt) tagged the crossing as a cycle crossing. Nothing is said of pedestrians. Pedestrians also don’t have priority when walking on a priority road. We also don’t tag that specifically. So there shouldn’t be a problem? Unless data consumers start assuming that pedestrians on a cycle crossing have cyclists’ rights.
I think I get it now. So it applies to both node and way. 
It might not be for Finland. Sweden and UK have cycle crossings with and without priority. Norway only has cycle crossing with priority. If FI is like NO, it follows from country defaults…
Finland’s crossings for cyclists, simplified:
• pedestrian crossing: ok to ride across, no priority
• cycleway crossing: ok to ride across, priority only compared to cars that are exiting a turn (so in practice a cyclist might have priority on one side of a traffic island and have to yield on the other)
• cycle crossing with the above mentioned sign: ok to ride across, priority for the crossing
Normal yield and stop signs are generally not used for cycleways, but they apply to a crossing if placed before the crossing in an intersection. (e.g. intersections where one road has a cycleway sidepath and the other road has a yield or stop sign).
The reality is that cars often yield when they don’t legally need to, but will pass a yield sign to wait in the middle of a crossing if they otherwise cannot easily see the intersection.
I don’t know which country do you come from but youu are wrong doing this kind of general affirmation. It depends on the country in Spain only those squares define the priority (and the triangles do not legally exist). Besides pedestrian are not allowed to walk in neither cycleways nor cycle crossings. The later is also true in most European countries.
I think it is important to label whether they are marked or not besidea of the bicycle=designated
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Crossings
I still have doubts if foot no should be added or it is implicit as it has not been stated…
Dots+Surface are bike only, dots+zebra are mixed foot/bike. We have some dots+surface+zebra. The once I know in my area have separate traffic signs for bike and pedestrian to signal to road users a crossing is coming up and which users to expect, but I agree, marking tags are a must to signal to navigator apps for both crossing users and vehicles what is being dealt with.
I’m from Norway and I was describing the situation in Norway (that’s why my text says “in NO” ). 
I agree that both cycle crossing and markings can and should be tagged.
If we used bicycle=designated, we could combine with crossing=marked. If we use crossing=cycle_crossing, or either way really, crossing:markings can be used.
Can people in Norway walk in cycleways such as this one sykkelfelt – Store norske leksikon ??
I know there are shared ones gang og sykklevei but it is difficult for me to believe your are allowed to walk in cyckeways like the one I show you… But i woukd like to know it just out of curiosity…
The law says pedestrians shall use footways, pavements or the shoulder. If this is not safe or for other reasons not doable, pedestrians can use traffic lanes, cycle lanes or cycleways.