[RFC] Feature Proposal - Continuous crossings

[osmuser63783]

@Tjuro

I like the suggestion from @ezekielf that would indeed clarify the crossing better.

The current proposal is essentially this suggestion, but simplified to have just two values yes and no.

@ezekielf

@osmuser63783

Could your suggestion be further simplified to crossing:continuous=yes? With yes meaning that the “lesser” way is continuous and no meaning that it isn’t (the implicit default).

I could see this working well. In many (most?) cases it is probably fairly clear which way is “lesser”. As with many other yes value tags, a more specific value could be used in cases where the “lesser” way is not clear.

So I suppose in situations where crossing:continuous=yes isn’t clear you could still use, for example, crossing:continuous=cycleway, but for your average continuous sidewalk, crossing:continuous=yes should be enough, and I’m open to rephrasing the definition if this can be made clearer.