Thread

[ tagging](https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1694359497439089)


Local-Mapper  [28 days ago](https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1694359497439089)

Good morning, I’m proposing a mechanical edit to add the crossing:markings tag to Unmarked Crossings in the US. I would appreciate your feedback.
[https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits/Local-Mapper](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits/Local-Mapper)

12 replies

---


citrula  [28 days ago](https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1694360178174469?thread_ts=1694359497.439089&cid=C2VJAJCS0)

Are you reasonably convinced that this tagging will remain stable? It seems like pedestrian crossings have had a somewhat turbulent recent past


Minh Nguyễn  [28 days ago](https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1694360780750549?thread_ts=1694359497.439089&cid=C2VJAJCS0)

`crossing:markings` was approved not long ago and has gotten a lot of traction since: [https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Crossing:markings](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Crossing:markings)


Local-Mapper  [28 days ago](https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1694360848142109?thread_ts=1694359497.439089&cid=C2VJAJCS0)

I am reasonably convinced because of that approved proposal and the discussions around it and other proposed tags.


Minh Nguyễn  [28 days ago](https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1694361015712579?thread_ts=1694359497.439089&cid=C2VJAJCS0)

Looks like you’re only looking at nodes, but many of these nodes are connected to `highway=footway` `footway=crossing` `crossing=unmarked` ways that also need to be tagged with `crossing:markings=no`. You can query for these ways as well using [https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass\_API/Overpass\_QL#Recurse_(n,\_w,\_r,\_bn,\_bw,_br)](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass_API/Overpass_QL#Recurse_(n,_w,_r,_bn,_bw,_br)) If the node and way have mismatching `crossing` tags, you should skip the crossing or reconcile them using imagery rather than assuming it’s unmarked. Someone could’ve updated one without the other. (edited) 



Local-Mapper  [28 days ago](https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1694362105675529?thread_ts=1694359497.439089&cid=C2VJAJCS0)

Thank you for the feedback. I believe this would return the correct nodes and ways without mismatches but I'm not an overpass expert. Can you confirm?
\[out:json\]\[timeout:100\];
(node\["crossing"="unmarked"\]\[!"crossing:markings"\]({{bbox}});
 way(bn)\["crossing"="unmarked"\]\[!"crossing:markings"\]({{bbox}}););
out center;


Minh Nguyễn  [28 days ago](https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1694362464226199?thread_ts=1694359497.439089&cid=C2VJAJCS0)

I don’t think you need the bbox filter on the second statement, but it doesn’t hurt.


Minh Nguyễn  [28 days ago](https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1694362843781169?thread_ts=1694359497.439089&cid=C2VJAJCS0)

This won’t check if the way and node match. I think you’d need something like this:

node\[crossing=unmarked\]\[!"crossing:markings"\]({{bbox}});
way(bn)\[crossing=unmarked\]\[!"crossing:markings"\];
out geom;
node(w)\[crossing=unmarked\]\[!"crossing:markings"\];
out geom;

This is redundantly crawling back down to the nodes that match the ways that match the nodes.


citrula  [28 days ago](https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1694367091502759?thread_ts=1694359497.439089&cid=C2VJAJCS0)

I would be interested in seeing how prevalent mismatched crossing tags on the way and the node are. I feel like the wiki and tooling around that are inadequate currently


UrbanUnPlanner  [28 days ago](https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1694367900044549?thread_ts=1694359497.439089&cid=C2VJAJCS0)

yeah, I run into a lot of cases where the way is a "naked" crossing way but the nodes are tagged, or you get a good crossing way but untagged or "naked" tagging on the nodes.  you'll also see cases where there is no crossing way, just a crossing node, especially with more minor crossings

1


Minh Nguyễn  [28 days ago](https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1694368507519729?thread_ts=1694359497.439089&cid=C2VJAJCS0)

The mismatches definitely should be addressed, but it sounds like the proposal is for a bulk edit that wouldn’t go into that much detail with each case. So I’d omit the corner cases for now.

1

Reply…

Also send to tagging