Add crossing:signals field to crossing/*traffic_signals presets

[tordans]

This is based on top of #1201 and should only be merged after that was merged. For that reason it is marked as a draft for now. I will rebase here in case #1201 changes. — Update: Since #1201 was merged this is now rebased and ready for review.

---

This PR adds the field and add the addTags part.

This follows the conversation during the iD Community Meetup to consider adding the tag due to the usage in StreetComplete, Routers and the general impression that the crossing:signals=yes tag is widely "in use" and accepted.

---

Closes #1118

Note: This change was also part of https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/pull/1044/files#diff-b8505be38bbc0be40512bf63c04d79f36f8826808ba4f0c06f186527eddcc7b4

[github-actions]

🍱 You can preview the tagging presets of this pull request here.

[tordans]

Testing

Looks good.

For a crossing node with just crossing=traffic_signals + highway=crossing the addTags dialogue shows up as expected:

Follow up

• Cleanup the addTags to only include the tags that are not already part of tags. Which makes it a lot easier to read and maintain.

Open question…

• Do we actually want a field for this? Because the field allows to remove the "yes" value, which triggers the yellow update box (again). I think we shoudl remove the field and rely on addTags to add a tag that is only visible in the full tags part of the sidebar.
  • 

[tordans]

Next steps

• - Wait for Crossing refactoring #1201 to be ready/merged
• - Double check with Refactor crossing presets #1044
• - Decision on the open question (to not include a specific field, just use addTags)

[Dimitar5555]

If a crossing is already tagged as crossing=traffic_signals, this implies that there are signals present at the crossing. Adding crossing:signals=yes alongside crossing=traffic_signals feels redundant, as it doesn't provide any additional valuable information.

If the goal is to eventually phase out crossing=traffic_signals and replace it with a combination of tags such as highway=crossing + crossing:signals=yes, then this should be clearly stated and discussed in a proposal.

In my opinion, the focus should be on maintaining clean and efficient tagging, and crossing=traffic_signals alone already conveys the necessary information about signal presence. Adding another tag for the same purpose could cause confusion and dilute the clarity of the tagging scheme.

[tordans]

Just for reference: The draft of the proposal on this tag https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Crossing_signalization#Rationale

---

Lets see if we find any reason to go along with this at this point … – I am happy with benching it for the time being.