Wiki-page for path=crossing

Top of the morning!

I noticed some time ago that there is some controversial documentation on the wiki regarding the mapping of footway=crossing+cycleway=crossing vs. path=crossing. Since I’m currently trying to collect all these loose ends and derive the really™ proper™ tagging for these paths, I noticed that the tag path=crossing is indeed not part of any proposal. It was simply added by the user Tomasz W in this changeset. While it adds a nice table with examples, it also postulates the use of path=crossing, whereas all other pages (plus the original proposal) contradict this by saying that one has to use both footway=crossing+cycleway=crossing.
So the page currently contradicts the approved proposal, which never even mentions path=* (but says "[…] a way connecting the sidewalks on the two sides of the road should be mapped […] footway=crossing. Additionally, if the crossing is also for bicycles, you should add cycleway=crossing"). The footway=sidewalk Wiki-page also lists path=sidewalk as a common mistake, which makes path=crossing even more controversial.

The path=crossing-Wiki-page also redirects to footway=crossing, but not so for the Polish Wiki-page for path=crossing which makes it look like this is/was mainly a Polish tagging-agreement.

Some statistics

tag usage
footway=crossing 2 392 647
cycleway=crossing 90 207
footway=crossing + cycleway=crossing 8 961
path=crossing 11 304

I tried to find at least some sort of discussion about the change, but to no avail. I sent that user a message via OSM and email - no reply after one week. Does anyone know anything about a discussion that I’m unable to find?

To make it clear: I’m not against the use of path=crossing as a shortcut to footway=crossing+cycleway=crossing, but it’s not even documented. It just appears in the examples for footway=crossing but it’s not explained there at all. Plus, if path=sidewalk is officially a tagging mistake, it should either be re-allowed for the sake of consistency, or path=crossing should be considered wrong tagging as well.


I don‘t know about any discussion, but as footway=crossing is a subtag for highway=footway and cycleway=crossing is a subtag for highway=cycleway, the only logical subtag for a highway=path that is crossing a road can be path=crossing.


I think that’s a misunderstanding: footway=* is not a subtag of highway=footway. A lot of people even wanted footway=* to be an independent tag, usable without any highway=*. In the proposal, it’s explicitly stated that it can also appear on other highway=*-types, e.g., highway=steps. Digging further, cycleway=crossing says:


There is a very rare usage (global: 57) of “segregated=crossing” too:

ok, that is really not very intuitive

1 Like

Looking at it again, there is also no page stating that footway=crossing and cycleway=crossing should be used on a highway=path that is designated for both and crossing a road. There is no documentation for that case at all, at least not on the pages you linked to.

I read that as: add both. But nevertheless: I’m fine with either, I just think it should be introduced properly and also documented. The way it is right now, it’s just a mess.


See also false positive for highway=path with sidewalk tag · Issue #462 · osm-fr/osmose-backend · GitHub

Osmose has complaint - which I consider as unwanted and misleading - about highway=path footway=sidewalk for combined footway/cycleway which are sidewalks.

Some people in Polish community believed that this Osmose warning is a correct one and retagged many ways (some of them were using path=sidewalk / path=crossing, some were removing correctly tagged footway=sidewalk footway=crossing)

On the discussion-page of the original proposal, it’s even mentioned that it will be added:

Apparently he later forgot to add it to the documentation :confused:

But the point is: it should be decided how this is tagged properly. Would we need a new proposal, or can a simple amendment be handled directly by the tagging mailing list?

Definitely sufficient in cases when there is no real opposition.

Also, this tagging is used already. I am not a great fan of it, but it is also not terrible.

Please let us know when you’ve got it worked out, as it’ll be good to see! :grinning: