crossing=no support

[matkoniecz]

OSM Tag(s)

crossing=no

How would you like this tag to see supported?

As a Preset

Label

No crossing allowed here

Aliases

Banned crossing, forbidden crossing, illegal crossing

Terms

No response

Link to OSM Wiki page

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:crossing%3Dno

Status of the Tag

Approved

Usage of the tag

>29k

Replaces other Tag?

no

Regional Tag?

No response

Further Information

It is applicable solely to nodes.

Ideally, hint can be shown that highway=path with such illegal crossing should have access=no section

Optionally: make it unsearchable to not confuse people (placing it instead of access=no section would be a mistake)\

Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3693399711

[1ec5]

Ideally, hint can be shown that highway=path with such illegal crossing should have access=no section

This might be difficult to explain well. Inexperienced users might inadvertently tag the entire crossing path as inaccessible, even if it’s only the portion that crosses the street or railway that’s inaccessible.

make it unsearchable to not confuse people

If it isn’t already, crossing=no should be one of the suggested fixes in iD when a path crosses a street or railway without a connecting node.

[matkoniecz]

It is not. This may explain part of invalid data, I will need to start looking at sofware used in damaging edits.

And in such case applying access=no section should be feasible (use the same code as for say bridges and tunnels).

[tordans]

I am curious…

I am trying to understand why what we see in the screenshot is not a plain mapping error? If there is a way crossing the railway, there needs to be a crossing. If there is no crossing present, there should not be any way; the way should stop and re-start with a noexit=yes on each end/start node.

I looked at the given wiki page and cannot see any good example that would match this case. Maybe the last part, which I find pretty vague …

Another case may be where the geometry of a footway crosses a road-way but at that position, it is not possible, legal or eligible to cross, so pedestrian (router)s need to find the closest proper crossing to safely continue onto the footway on the other side of the road.

And with this example I have the same question: Why map a crossing way if there is no crossing?

[matkoniecz]

And with this example I have the same question: Why map a crossing way if there is no crossing?

Because crossing path exists, even if it is illegal and dangerous. The first screenshot ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3693399711 ) has such path, second is just interface test and have not selected place with a real path.

See say https://www.radiolodz.pl/posts/27234-zamkneli-przejscie-przez-tory-zgierzanie-protestuja for a clear unambiguous illegal path

If there is a way crossing the railway, there needs to be a crossing. If there is no crossing present, there should not be any way

This assumes that illegal crossings do not exist.

[1ec5]

I’m also assuming this discussion applies to paths crossing roads. Even if there’s no safe or valid crossing, the mapper may draw a pathway continuing past the road because in reality the path meets the road at the same place on either side.

[tyrasd]

Even if there’s no safe or valid crossing, the mapper may draw a pathway continuing past the road because in reality the path meets the road at the same place on either side.

The existence of this case makes it kind of impossible to show a validator message/hint “that highway=path with such illegal crossing should have access=no section”. 😒

Usage of the tag
29k

I noticed that most (90%) of the usages of this tag are in combination with highway=traffic_signals, where it is used as an attribute (i.e. a field in iD). Should we also add such a (optional) field to the Traffic Signals preset?

[matkoniecz]

I noticed that most (90%) of the usages of this tag are in combination with highway=traffic_signals

Huh. I was not expecting such use at all, despite it being documented at OSM Wiki. Thanks for spotting.