Talk:Pedestrian crossing

message: I changed the paragraph I originally wrote a long time ago to be slightly more informative, and also added references. Agnosticaphid (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: N. America section

message: I think a merge with "Zebra crossing" and a 'in the UK/SA/Australia' or 'in the US' explanation with both terms would be a good idea, unless there's some real difference other than you have look the other way.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.0.25 (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: An editor recently requested a neutral opinion on WP:3O.  I want to first say that it is good to see sincere discussion of editorial matters.  I am sure that both Scheinwerfermann and Hex are good editors with much to contribute.  I believe that it is important to conform to general style guidelines for uniformity across the encyclopedia.  I am therefore remaining neutral until I have time to research what practices are followed in other similar articles, as well as if any MoS guidelines are applicable.  This is a good question, and I'm sure we can find either precedent or a highly experienced style editor to help guide us. --Matheuler 21:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have looked into the matter on various style pages.  It appears to me that there is no direct concensus regarding this issue.  That being said, I am personally inclined, based on my observation of other Wikipedia pages, to advise against the use of the small caps.  I was not able to find another situation in which small caps are used comparably, except the Stop sign article, where they were put in by User:Scheinwerfermann.  So, in short, I do not find any policy guidelines or past concensus indicating either preference.  But my neutral opinion, with respect to both editors, is that the article is better without small caps.  Thanks, and best wishes with further editing. --Matheuler 22:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Opinion 

message: I also wanted to chime in.  I can say I know first hand that the signs in question use small caps.  However, displaying them as such doesn't really add anything to the article.  The presentation isn't usually necessary for a complete understanding, especially since the point of that section is that those signs aren't being viewed.  The "walk" and "don't walk" are being referenced as specific "modes" that the signs could be in, not the actual signage displayed.  The goal is to display the content as clearly as possible, and not be beholden to stylistic trademarks except where it is advantageous.  For example, earlier in the article "PED X ING" is used, which is a good, singular example.  As for the MoS, some application from WP:ALLCAPS can be drawn.  It explicitly says to reduce case names, headlines, and album titles from all caps.  Take one example, such as the Moon landing.  That headline is far more iconic than a stop sign, but it's not advantageous to display it in all caps.  Much better to print the information inherent within it. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 01:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fourth opinion

message: This article is very US-centric. WALK/Don't walk is not used anywhere in Europe, so most of the world in fact does NOT use walk/don't walk. I will try to expand this article a bit, since it's pretty short and doesn't list other countries...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.20.187 (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very US-centric 

message: For some reason user: Wtshymanski does not feel we need to list country for Portland, Oregon yet other countries, for example Germany and Canada are listed on their respective images. This user should either explain why we are not listing US but every other country or remove country from the other images. Zarcadia (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's take out the others, then, if there's already a link. I think it's redundant and wordy - if the reader wants to know where the city is, it clicks on the link. Otherwise it's just more pointless Wikipadding. Terabytes are cheap, bandwidth nearly so, but reader's time is precious. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, I'll do that. I think it's important for WP that there is consistency within the articles. Thanks for replying. Zarcadia (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing of country 

message: Former disabled crossing signals should be replaced with fully capable crossing signals - I agree.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.221.39 (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Every crossing should be fully capable 

message: I think that the section about pedestrian signals should be split up into its own article, Pedestrian signal. It makes the article about pedestrian crossings a bit easier to read.
Any takers? Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions)  14:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've consolidated most of the signal stuff in one section, although some remains in the regional variations sections. Not sure there is enough material right now for a new article. I'd like to see this expanded and spun off at some point. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article? 

message: As the first sentence of the article we've got this definition: "A pedestrian crossing or crosswalk is a designated point on a road at which some means are employed to assist pedestrians wishing to cross." But at least in the US, this isn't exactly right. Many, perhaps most, crosswalks in the US do not have any means "to assist pedestrians wishing to cross." I would propose changing this to something like "A pedestrian crossing or crosswalk is a designated point on a road at which it is legal for pedestrians to cross." Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true everywhere. In NY State (outside of NY City, at least), it is legal to cross the street anywhere unless there is a sign prohibiting it. The difference is who must yield - vehicle drivers must yield to walkers at unsignalized crosswalks, and walkers must yield to drivers if there is no crosswalk. To make things more complicated, NY State law says crosswalks exist at intersections with sidewalks on both sides, even if there are no pavement markings. I suggest simply "a place designated for pedestrians to cross a road." --Triskele Jim 16:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, that's better. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: It seems to me the "Characteristics" section should just go away, and its subsections promoted. The section is way too long. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout 

message: Are the stripes always white? I've seen places with yellow stripes. –HTD 15:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: According to national regulations in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, US crosswalks are required to have white stripes. Colored pavement between the stripes is optional, as long as it isn't yellow or any other color restricted for a specific purpose.  Other countries could have different standards. --Triskele Jim 01:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the original question asked if the stripes "are" always white, not if they "should" be white. As an example, which can be cited as an exception to the protocol, refer to this intersection that has white stripes filled in with yellow paint https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bridge+St,+Dracut,+MA/@42.6689105,-71.3033832,69m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e3a5eca9820595:0x271ed93b95d0c700!8m2!3d42.6815496!4d-71.3090434 --Tylr00 (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color 

message: Crossing does not only mean get across a road perpendicularly according to the typical image associated with the word. One may get across any area or longitudinally through a way (all along but inside).
Hence, the correct definition of a "pedestrian crossing" is simply a delimited place where pedestrians can securely walk where the vehicles run.
Internationally, there are indeed pedestrian crossing (paintings) that do not look like the canonical image.
I'm stressing this because, when proposing a widened support of the word 'crossing' to OpenStreetMap, I met a negative reaction caused by the restricted idea of 'crossing' that they had in mind.
Here are some pictures and I wish I could include one at (5.6286,50.5350) all along the road to access a school.
http://referentiel.nouvelobs.com/wsfile/2151402563993.jpg
http://www.lesoir.be/sites/default/files/imagecache/475x317/2012/10/09/816656018_ID3414785_09_saintgilles_101940_024HP1_0.JPG
https://scontent-b-fra.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/t1.0-9/529707_379452988772468_304655380_n.jpg
--A Pirard (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you move this section to the end of the talk page. Otherwise no one will see it unless they have this article watchlisted. Also please sign your posts.
Thanks for the tips.--A Pirard (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

text: I'm not quite sure what you're asking, since the photos you link to all seem to match the definition given in this article. Can you suggest the alternate text you want to use? Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of "crossing"

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Pedestrian crossing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100218123637/http://www.nytimes.com:80/2004/02/27/nyregion/27BUTT.html?ex=1393218000 to http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/27/nyregion/27BUTT.html?ex=1393218000
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In Taipei, Taiwan, I encountered a type of crossing I did not see in this article. Should it be? --FredTC (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagonal crossing 

message: This article is nice, and informative of Pedestrian crossing culture worldwide. 
However it does not enough highlight the fact that Pedestrian crossing is a legal term, and legally defined. 
In many countries Overtaking is illegal over a Pedestrian crossing and it is a strong factor for Suspension (punishment) of Driver's license, and it is necessary to know what the law is talking about. 
The Swedish trafikförordningen (Traffic Ordinance law), Chapter 3, Section 40
  Vehicles or trams must not be overtaken shortly before or at an unguarded pedestrian crossing, an unguarded bicycle passage or a bicycle crossing.
In Sweden the definitions of traffic legal terms comes from a hierarchy;  1.) Svenska Akademiens ordlista (about the same as OALD in English), 2. Swedish Language Council (TNC) and 3. The Gov Traffic authority (Trafikverket), dependent on the generality of terms. In this case by the authority:
  Pedestrian crossing
  part of a street that is intended to be used by pedestrians to cross a roadway or a cycle path and indicated by road marking or road sign
  A pedestrian crossing is guarded if the traffic is regulated by traffic signals or by a police officer and otherwise unattended.
The important topic here is that a Installation art for crossing pedestrians with a Traffic island are in fact legally two Pedestrian crossings with a Traffic island in between. There are no Pedestrian crossings over Traffic islands and Shoulder (road)s and issues like overtaking and pedestrians rights are indeed strongly regulated according to this.
Also expressions like definitions of Overtaking are important in this theme and the Swedish definition of Overtaking is: 
  passage of other or other vehicles on the same road or street and with the same direction of movement
Meaning that like lane changes  before or after an Overtaking is not legally a part of the Overtaking, but usually are in vulgar non legal language. 
I think this article should be developed in a more legally crisp section.
Also it would be interesting to be informed of particular differences in law in various countries? Are there any legal international agreements etc (isen't it)?  
I think it is a good high lighting of the security topic of the Swedish Traffic Ordinance law, Chapter 3, Section 40, Overtaking on a pedestrian crossing is illegal because the overtooken car shades a possible pedestrian for the overtaking car, and is a huge risk of personal damage. While if there is a Traffic island this risk is eliminated. 
I think it is important to in Wikipedia legally distingwish Road, Street, lanes, Shoulder (road) etc, because they make a legal difference. I can't see it clear enough? 
--Zzalpha (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pedestrian crossing is usually a legal term 

message: Closed; no consensus, no rationale for merge, policy reasons not to. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: * This is a terrible analogy. Merging "zebra crossing" into "pedestrian crossing" is more like merging an article for "striped Telecaster" into an article for Telecaster. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Zebra crossing]] 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Some of the information about signal buttons for NYC is wrong. Inactive buttons installed in the 1960s weren't meant to be placebos but were for future use, so that control boxes could be added later. I can't correct it because it would be considered original research. My father was the borough engineer for the department of highways at the time and had firsthand knowledge. It was something that I knew growing up from the time the buttons were installed. The buttons in question were not working at one time. It was easy to confirm when the buttons were first put in, but again, Wikipedia won't accept "I was there and tried it." 
While I can't put in the correct information per Wikipedia rules, the text indicates that it's speculation that they were put in as placebos. It seems reasonable to remove speculation since it's essentially a wild guess that the city spent money for no reason to accomplish nothing. It's also speculation that they were working at one time, and is clearly not evidence based. There's more than enough justification for someone to remove incorrect information that was speculation to begin with. Hagrinas (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signals and buttons