Crossing Markings Quest - improve wording

[RubenKelevra]

Currently the wording of the Crossing Markings Quest is pretty ambiguous, as it does not specify where the markings are supposed to be:

Here are some examples, which are technically "markings":

But all of them doesn't fit the OSM definition of markings.

So the question should be more along the lines of "Does this crosswalk have painted markings of any kind across the road?"

Version

SC 58.x / 59.x

[kmpoppe]

The source code currently says

        /* We only tag yes/no, however, in countries where depending on the kind of marking,
         * different traffic rules apply, it makes sense to ask which marking it is. But to know
         * which kinds exist per country needs research. (Whose results should be added to the
         * wiki page for crossing:markings first) */

I think this is part of the problem, there are currently no examples of "valid" crossing:marking values - i.e. pictures/graphics - in SC, which might lead to misunderstandings in what the correct answer to the quest is. If the diagrams from the wiki page were used to determine how the crossing is marked, all your examples would most likely be recognised as no.

I would argue that with 14 documented values (ignoring yes and all the rainbow ones which are listed as questionable) it wouldn't be a problem to just show all of them as diagrams and just let the user pick. If that results in 90% zebra (which taginfo would imply if it's not yes or no), so be it - of course there could always be the option "other" (which could tag yes) and "leave a note because it looks totally different".

[westnordost]

I wrote that before. SCEE implementation would be fine as soon as we know in which countries which crossing markings can exist legally. Otherwise, contributors who live in countries in which markings are used by default that are much further down the list would need to pull up the bottom sheet and look for their selection every time they have to answer this quest. Someone would need to research that.

How about "Does this crossing have markings on the roadway?" ?

[RubenKelevra]

Someone would need to research that.

I'm happy to do the research for that for Germany. I think it would be necessary to do this on a country per country basis here, as this requires local knowledge and maybe some understanding of the language to look up legal documents on that matter - as it's hardly mapped at all atm. So we shouldn't stick to the OSM values currently in use here.

I'll submit the results for Germany in a feature request.

---

Back to topic,

How about "Does this crossing have markings on the roadway?" ?

I think it's better, but still missing the "across" part. Meaning that it crosses the travel direction of car traffic.

As some of my examples do have markings on the road surface, but none have markings across the car travel direction, which this tag is about.

So maybe just a bluntly state: "Does this crossing have markings on the road which goes across other directions of traffic?"

[westnordost]

I'll submit the results for Germany in a feature request.

Hm, better put that in the wiki. It wouldn't make sense to change to use the SCEE-UI before not many countries are covered.

[westnordost]

"Does this crossing have markings on the road which goes across other directions of traffic?"

sounds confusing.

Or "Does this crossing have markings across the roadway?

[RubenKelevra]

I'll submit the results for Germany in a feature request.

Hm, better put that in the wiki. It wouldn't make sense to change to use the SCEE-UI before not many countries are covered.

You mean OSM wiki? There's already a page for crossing:markings in German.

I thought we make a feature request and have people submit their countries, until it makes sense to implement?

Or "Does this crossing have markings across the roadway?

That's fine!

[westnordost]

Yes, I mean the wiki. I mean, that there should be a table that lists which crossing markings are used in which countries.

[RubenKelevra]

I'll do a PR for the change :)

[davidpnewton]

At least so far as the UK is concerned?

For traffic signal controlled pedestrian crossings, whether standalone crossings or crossings associated with signal controlled junctions the only markings used are dots. That applies to pelican, puffin, toucan and pegasus crossings and crossings at junctions. A cycle only route across signal controlled junctions uses dashes.

For marked crossings without signal control the vast majority of them use zebra+dots. That's zebra crossings (yes that's right the UK zebra crossings on public highways don't actually use "zebra" markings in the OSM sense!).

The rarer (much, much rarer) type are so-called parallel crossings, aka zebra crossings where cyclists are allowed to use a separate crossing alongside the pedestrian zebra crossing. That uses zebra markings for the pedestrian bit and dashes with pictograms at each kerb for the cycle bit.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14/made

See diagram 1001.3 and down in that legislation for diagrams of the markings.

[westnordost]

Ok, please put such information in the wiki (in some consolidated, non-prose form). Linking to legislation is always a good idea.

[RubenKelevra]

Ok, please put such information in the wiki (in some consolidated, non-prose form). Linking to legislation is always a good idea.

Alright. I've looked a bit around for Germany, and I think I got an overview of what needs to be put into the wiki.

I guess it makes sense to at least open a discussion here, however to communicate about the effort. I'll do this instead.

Main issue for Germany is right now, that the wiki has less options than are actually in use in Germany, as we got mixed bicycle and pedestrian crossings, like this:

Which would be somewhat likecrossing:markings=zebra;surface+dashes+pictograms?

[RubenKelevra]

Here's the discussion:

#5875

[westnordost]

Main issue for Germany is right now, that the wiki has less options than are actually in use in Germany, as we got mixed bicycle and pedestrian crossings, like this

Uh, great. 😐 Kind of not thought out well, that tagging scheme. Will need to be discussed in the OSM community forum. But your example is really common, interesting that it didn't come up in the proposal discussion.

[mnalis]

Which would be somewhat like crossing:markings=zebra;surface+dashes+pictograms?

No... If I understand that wiki section correctly, that picture (very common in Croatia too for segregated=yes footway+cycleway) should be marked with footway:crossing:markings=zebra + cycleway:crossing:markings=dashes;pictograms instead of using unprefixed crossing:markings=* with some homebrewed syntax such as that.