crossing=zebra - on changing it to crossing=marked add also crossing_ref=zebra

[matkoniecz]

Currently iD validator wants to change crossing=zebra to crossing=marked and describes it as "Marked Crosswalk has outdated tags".

Changing it to crossing=marked + crossing_ref=zebra would avoid losing data. Information whatever it is marked as zebra crossing or something else is not very valuable. But people map and care about even less important stuff so would be nice to avoid losing data.

Especially as by default it is not made clear that applying "Upgrade the tags" is losing some mapped data.

[quincylvania]

@matkoniecz This would be fine if everything with crossing=zebra was actually a zebra crossing. The issue is that iD previously called this a "Marked Crosswalk" so mappers used it for all kinds of crossings that aren't zebra crossings. We can't trust the tag so we're forced to discard it.

[bhousel]

From talking to lots of people about this for the past few years, I haven’t met anyone who likes crossing_ref as a tag.

More people seem to prefer the idea of using a marked=* subtag to refine the kind of markings that the crosswalk has.

[RobJN]

Please consider local situations as well :-D

For example it would be good if you have you spoken to people in the UK about this as well. The history of OSM tagging in this case originates from the UK where zebra/pelican/toucan etc are well defined and understood by the general public (especially zebra).

Is it possible to not discard them in the UK please? If not then you will be throwing away a lot of good data.

P.S. I am happy with crossing_ref as a tag. More so we use designation=* to mar the legal status of things in the UK. Guess if we had that tag in common use a few years ago we might have put zebra/pelican/toucan in the designation=* tag instead.

[rjw62]

This use of the iD validator is essentially an automated edit, so it should have been consulted on. All the more so because it is potentially resulting in lost data. Given the historic use of zebra crossings in the UK, I think this suggested "tag upgrade" should be suspended until local considerations have been though through.

[quincylvania]

This use of the iD validator is essentially an automated edit

@rjw62 This just isn't true. Upgrades are performed by users. If we did automated edits then iD wouldn't have to bother users with tag warnings since there wouldn't be inconsistencies.

That said, people do seem to have strong opinions on this tag so I made iD not have an opinion. You still can't add crossing=zebra with a preset but no longer will iD ask you to upgrade it.

[RobJN]

My view: upgrading it is fine as I agree with the push for tag standardisation, but when you do upgrade it please put zebra/toucan/pelican into the crossing_ref=* tag. Thanks :-)

…

On Mon, 11 Nov 2019, 10:46 Quincy Morgan, ***@***.***> wrote: This use of the iD validator is essentially an automated edit @rjw62 <https://github.com/rjw62> This just isn't true. Upgrades are performed by users. If we did automated edits then iD wouldn't have to bother users with tag warnings since there wouldn't be inconsistencies. That said, people do seem to have strong opinions on this tag so I made iD not have an opinion. You still can't add crossing=zebra with a preset but no longer will iD ask you to upgrade it. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#6962?email_source=notifications&email_token=ABGTM4WLY3GVLFSUXAPSTR3QTEZYVA5CNFSM4JDNYRBKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEDWNGAI#issuecomment-552391425>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABGTM4RFGGPEDEVNVMOVOFTQTEZYVANCNFSM4JDNYRBA> .

[rjw62]

@quincylvania I'm aware of how the "Upgrade tags" system in iD works, and I stand by what I said. Given the "upgrade tags" wording, the fact the actual changes being made to the tags are hidden by default, the single click action, and that it's being promoted by the official OSM editor, mappers are likely to accept the suggestions mechanically, without checking individually whether or not they are appropriate. For me that makes it effectively a mechanical edit -- irrespective of who's actually carrying it out.

As for this particular change, the problem is that iD was previously using crossing=zebra on what it termed a "Marked Crossing", so any instances added through the iD preset by users who didn't look at the tagging would only have indicated such a crossing. So I'm not convinced it's appropriate to automatically add crossing_ref=zebra to those either. I think these instances of crossing=zebra will all need manual review to fix up, at least in the UK, where it's reasonably likely to actually be a zebra crossing.

[aceman444]

I have also seen users of iD changing crossing=uncontrolled to crossing=marked, which is another loss of detail. This messing of iD editor with crossing tags and inventing new made up tags should be stopped. New tags in editor presets must only be added once voted on and standardized on wiki. New tags should only be added by experienced users manually, AFTER which popular tags get voted on and standardized.

[aceman444]

Also the excuse of iD authors claiming crossing=uncontrolled being ambiguous or unreadable to users is invalid in my opinion. Users of iD see a human readable preset 'Marked Crosswalk" and do not care of what cryptic tags get encoded for that in the database. Isn't that the whole point of an editor for OSM beginners?