Talk:Key:crossing:island

Complicated cases not covered

So, this is now an iD validation rule and used widely, but I still haven't seen a way to mark up complicated crossings, like the ones mentioned by User:Pbb on the proposal page (eg multiway roads, crossings between lanes etc). The old scheme allowed to specify the location of the crossing, whereas this feels like a downgrade in accuracy and granularity --Tohaklim (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

When not to use crossing:island=yes

I've added a section on when crossing:island=yes should not be used. From a data consumer's standpoint the reason is thus: crossing:island=yes tells you that a length of highway=footway plus footway=crossing has at least one place to pause and rest in safety somewhere along that length. A router that wishes to provide less mobile people with a way to avoid long crossings could use that for instance. When these crossings are mapped separately, you get two (or more) lengths of footway=crossing. The way between those is implied to act as a traffic island (as long as it's not a footway=crossing), so by using crossing:island=yes here the data consumer reads this as if all of those separate crossings have traffic islands somewhere in the middle of them, which isn't the case.

Let me know if this doesn't sound sensible. --JeroenHoek (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)