HackMDThread
Local-Mapper 28 days ago
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
12 replies
citrula 28 days ago
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
crossing:markings was approved not long ago and has gotten a lot of traction since: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Crossing:markings
Local-Mapper 28 days ago
I am reasonably convinced because of that approved proposal and the discussions around it and other proposed tags.
Minh Nguyễn 28 days ago
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) 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
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
I don’t think you need the bbox filter on the second statement, but it doesn’t hurt.
Minh Nguyễn 28 days ago
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
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
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
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
