Replace continuous=yes + sidewalk=yes with highway=crossing #52
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
TfL's side road entry treatments always represent a crossing and importing them without highway=crossing provides no benefit to data consumers. Only a minority of these crossings are "Copenhagen crossings" (the term used by London Borough of Waltham Forest), which have a continuous and unmarked sidewalk across the side road and usually no tactile paving. They also have a give way marking on the side road before it crosses the sidewalk, giving priority to pedestrians crossing the side road. In these cases, the continuous=yes tag might be useful when documented in the wiki with an accepted definition. https://enjoywalthamforest.co.uk/blended-copenhagen-crossings/ The majority are actually normal pedestrian crossings with a speed table or flush kerbs. The pavement is not continuous, the give way markings on the side road are between the crossing and the main road. Tactile paving is often present. Telling a data consumer with additional accessibility needs that such a side road treatment is a continuous sidewalk would have been somewhat irresponsible.
|
There is now a proposal to tag continuous crossings with crossing:continuous=* https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Continuous_crossings |
|
The crossing:continuous=* tag has now been approved, so TfLCID side entry treatment objects could now be conflated using this tag. I'll look at some examples near me, then take another look at my pull request over the next few days. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
TfL's side road entry treatments always represent a crossing and importing them without highway=crossing provides no benefit to data consumers. This is the only assertion which can confidently be made about these assets without further examination of aerial and streetside imagery.
Only a minority of these crossings are "Copenhagen crossings" (the term used by London Borough of Waltham Forest), which have a continuous and unmarked sidewalk across the side road and usually no tactile paving. They also have a give way marking on the side road before it crosses the sidewalk, giving priority to pedestrians crossing the side road. In these cases, the continuous=yes tag might be useful when documented in the wiki with an accepted definition. https://enjoywalthamforest.co.uk/blended-copenhagen-crossings/
The majority are actually normal pedestrian crossings with a speed table or flush kerbs. The pavement is not continuous, the give way markings on the side road are between the crossing and the main road. Tactile paving is often present. Telling a data consumer with additional accessibility needs that such a side road treatment is a continuous sidewalk would have been somewhat irresponsible.