Tagging proposal: flashing_lights:design

General talk Tagging general discussion
, , ,
1

Hi all,

During my crusade against crossing_ref, it became clear that there is a need to indicate the type of flashing lights near a crossing.

You can find the proposal here.

1 Like
Start of voting: Flashing lights design + broading the definition of flashing-lights
Killing the zoo: deprecating "crossing_ref" (except in the UK)
Highway=traffic_signals, ook voor andere lichten dan driekleurige verkeerslichten?
2

I expect we may be surprised how many standard types there are worldwide

10 Likes
3

I kindoff suspect that only the 'US’ has a ‘standard’-type :stuck_out_tongue:

I didn’t do too much research, so feel free to add values.

4

maybe different code would be better? flashing_orange ?

2 Likes
Start of voting: Flashing lights design + broading the definition of flashing-lights
5

Someone also commented on the proposal that “in some European countries, the traffic lights turn into flashing_lights with amber during nighttime”. So, ‘flashing_orange’ could be confused with that


I wonder how the legal codes describe those lights, that might be able to provide a hint.

6

The image is from Germany, so
 :grinning_face:

The colour probably shouldn’t be part of it.

In Germany, they are apparently called “Schutzblinker”: Schutzblinker – Wikipedia
That describes more their function than their design however.

Maybe *=single or *=single_light or something?

7

Another thing to consider is if there is an icon on the light. The “Schutsblinker”-wikipedia above has e.g. a pedestrian, a horse, a tram, 
 Should we include this too?

1 Like
8

It seems to be called a disperser (in German “Streuscheibe”).

Though that should be done with consideration for traffic lights, which also employ dispersers.

9

This is a good start. I’d suggest changing the scope of the proposal to make the resulting tagging scheme more coherent. I know you’re primarily interested in crossings because your broader goal is to eliminate crossing_ref=*, but we don’t want this proposal to result in crossing_ref=* by another name. Note that some of my suggestions may be unlikely or prohibited under the Vienna Convention but would be common in other countries (not just the U.S.).

Intersection control beacons

Even though they’re unrelated to crossings, I think we should pull intersection control beacons into the proposal because they’re so similar to conventional crossing warning beacons in both form and function.

The current recommendation for an intersection control beacon is highway=traffic_signals traffic_signals=blinker on the intersection node. This is always misleading and has always resulted in misbehavior by renderers and routers. I don’t know of any data consumer that correctly surmises that in reality it’s the combination of a highway=stop and a highway=priority.

After being an early proponent of highway=traffic_signals traffic_signals=blinker, I’ve been avoiding it for several years now. I think we need to stop conflating flashing beacons with traffic signals as a prerequisite to classifying flashing beacons by their designs. We should deprecate the use of highway=traffic_signals traffic_signals=blinker for intersection control beacons (but keep the tag around for more appropriate uses if any). The replacement depends on the type of stop:

Stop type Signal aspect Tagging
All-way Flashing red in all directions highway=stop stop=all on the intersection node
Two-way Flashing red at minor approaches
Flashing yellow at major approaches		 (highway=priority on the intersection node)
highway=stop stop=minor at the stop lines

Then we can apply flashing_lights=yes flashing_lights:design=standard at the intersection or stop lines as appropriate. standard would refer to a ball that slowly flashes on and off, but it wouldn’t imply a particular color – that’s what the primary feature tag is for.

Warning and stop beacons

Crossing beacons and intersection control beacons are just special cases. In fact, a flashing yellow beacon can be mounted atop any warning sign for emphasis, two flashing yellow beacons can flank a speed limit sign for emphasis, and a flashing red beacon can be mounted atop a stop sign (without any corresponding beacon for the other directions). Each of these beacons should result in flashing_lights=yes flashing_lights:design=standard on the traffic_sign=* node and any applicable highway=* node.

In-pavement flashing lights

An embedded pavement flashing light system would logically be flashing_lights=yes flashing_lights:design=pavement, unless you want to unify it with the tag for flashing LED lights embedded in the crossing warning sign. It’s the same technology, just in a different spot.

HAWK beacons

I suggest removing flashing_lights:design=hawk from the proposal. flashing_lights=* cannot fully express a HAWK beacon without missing the point. A HAWK beacon is officially known as a pedestrian hybrid beacon because of the combination of steady and flashing aspects. Of the five aspects, only two are flashing. Each aspect is analogous to a different traffic control device:

Signal aspect Meaning Analogue
Flashing yellow Slow flashing_lights=yes flashing_lights:design=standard
Steady yellow Prepare to stop highway=traffic_signals traffic_signals=signal
Steady red Stop and wait highway=traffic_signals traffic_signals=signal
Flashing red Stop and go highway=stop stop=minor

There are some important reasons not to overemphasize the flashing technology. We wouldn’t map big_stop_sign=yes instead of highway=stop just because the stop sign is bigger than usual. Moreover, conventional :vertical_traffic_light: vehicular signal heads often come with flashing lights too. An increasingly common configuration is the flashing yellow arrow, which is designed to prevent the yellow trap.

For our purposes, here’s what I’d suggest for the various aspects of a HAWK crossing in order of priority:

  1. The stop line for the HAWK beacon: highway=traffic_signals traffic_signals=hawk at both stop lines
    • This would be consistent with highway=traffic_signals traffic_signals=emergency for an emergency vehicle hybrid beacon in front of a fire station, which is identical to a HAWK beacon.
  2. The presence of a pedestrian signal head: crossing:signals=yes[1] on the crossing
  3. The presence of a crosswalk marking: crossing:markings=* on the crossing
  4. The presence of a HAWK beacon: crossing:protection=traffic_signals
    • This tag applies whenever a crossing is protected by vehicular traffic signals of any kind.
  5. The presence of crosswalk signage: crossing:signed=yes

In my opinion, only items (1), (2), and (3) are essential for replacing crossing_ref=hawk. None of the three would strictly require a proposal at this point, since they all evolve de facto tagging schemes. But if you formally propose to deprecate crossing_ref=hawk, then this can be your formal replacement for it.

  1. Or separate, designated, or walk, depending on how this proposal goes. ↩

Killing the zoo: deprecating "crossing_ref" (except in the UK)
10

A highway=traffic_signals traffic_signals=blink_mode is a conventional :vertical_traffic_light: traffic signal head that is capable of the red and green aspects but only flashes yellow for some reason. If this only happens at night, then traffic_signals:conditional=blink_mode @ sunset-sunrise seems sufficient to me. (This used to be common in the area where I map, but no longer, so unfortunately I can’t give an example of it.)

We only need flashing_lights=yes to indicate the presence of a flashing beacon when we aren’t already indicating a flashing light in some other manner that’s more essential to navigation.

11

In the linked Wiki page, you state:

Sometimes, contributors want to tag the type of flashing light and abuse crossing_ref=* for this (e.g. crossing_ref=hawk or crossing_ref=rrfb as used in the US, hence poluting [sic] that tag.

However, there is no explanation of why/how that is “abuse” of crossing_ref=* or how flashing_lights:design=rrfb and flashing_lights:design=hawk are better than crossing_ref=rrfb and crossing_ref=hawk, respectively.

Would you mind elaborating? Without details, this seems like a proposal to change things without reason, and I would not support it.

12

What are dispersers?

1 Like
13

We have this as a backup if something happens to make the main lights inoperative e.g. if a traffic accident has demolished one light, all the others will automatically go to blinking yellow / amber as a warning signal

Does https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6uFj9azWRo help? :grinning_face:

2 Likes
14

In the linked Wiki page, you state:

flashing_lights:design=standard “A plain, orange flashing light”

But the animation is about not . So the text is misleading or you need to add information about the displayed symbol, possibly that it’s not taken into account.

And the video shows that only pedestrians can cross, no cycle :upside_down_face:.

15

I don’t actually know the english term for it (might also be diffuser or scatter plate or something).
What I mean by it is the translucent lens which disperses the light from the light source and produces the displayed icon by blocking some of that light.

Does this help?

1 Like
16

flashing_light= is “in use”, not de facto. You need to change, or propose it first.
Can anyone explain the sharp rise in 2025? osm tag history
I still don’t understand why crossing:light= shouldn’t be used when crossing= etc is used on both highway= and railway= without much differentiation. Different meanings can be expected on each.
For the flashing_lights:design= besides =standard , =traffic_sign doesn’t make much sense, and it’s not illustrated. Not ready for review.

17

In American traffic engineering, a signal face can depict an arrow, bicycle, or other pictogram. A signal face can be implemented as a lens over an incandescent lamp or increasingly as a pattern of LED modules. The technologies are interchangeable from a regulatory standpoint. In any case, I don’t think a tagging scheme about flashing lights should focus on the specific technology. After all, a :person_walking: signal face doesn’t even necessarily flash in every situation.

In case it helps, here are animated examples of conventional flashing amber and red warning lights that have no special lenses over them:

Incidentally, this gives me an idea to modify the crossing:signals=shared/separate proposal to say crossing:signals=go/walk/cycle instead. Before the days of symbolic signal faces, this is what the signal faces used to literally say on them. Maybe the extra specificity could break through the naming impasse in that proposal.

crossing:light=* is about the presence of a level crossing signal. Most of them do consist of alternating flashing lights, but there are some non-flashing variants such as the wigwag (which I tentatively tagged as crossing:light=wigwag). If you were to tag a physical crossbuck as a traffic_sign=* node, not just as crossing:saltire=yes, then I agree that the node could have flashing_lights=* on it in principle.

18

Got you, thanks!

Have to say that I’m not certain of the actual name of them either! I’d take a stab at either lens or cover?

19

You immediately have a problem in =wigwag " The term should not be confused with its usage in Britain, where “wigwag” generally refers to alternate flashing lights, such as those found at modern level crossings"
Yes, I know it’s used in railway= , but the naming doesn’t suggest it must be restricted in there only. crossing=traffic_signals / crossing:signals= is used in both. Obviously crossing=uncontrolled have a different meaning across the two. I imagined now crossing:barrier= may be used as =bollard protecting pedestrians.

20

see here Diffuser (optics) - Wikipedia