This is why I’ve been advocating for crossing:signals=* to go alongside crossing:markings=* (for signals, not signs). The specific configuration of an unmarked but signalized crossing is an important one that shouldn’t be conflated with other configurations just because it’s unheard of in Europe. In some countries, the markings are merely a matter of engineering judgment; motorists don’t notice pedestrians at an unmarked crossing like at a marked crossing. Elsewhere, this key still gives mappers the ability to distinguish unknown signalization, which prevents them from diluting information about configurations with known signalization.
I‘ve also drafted a proposal for more detail in countries where a Boolean value is inadequate, again because signalization is so important. If there aren’t dedicated pedestrian signals, then a motorist is even less likely to notice a crossing pedestrian as they make an unprotected turn.
Indeed, there are six reasons why longitudinal bar (“zebra”) markings may appear at a crosswalk in the U.S., and five of them are relevant to a signalized crosswalk. Some cities like New York install zebra markings exclusively, because their crosswalks are so busy and so wide that normal transverse lines would lose their visual meaning. Other cities only install zebra markings at signals when a younger, less traditional traffic engineer happens to be involved in the project.
These are all reasons to keep the tagging for markings, signs, and signals as distinct from each other as possible.