Proposal:Surface of embedded railway tracks
| surface of embedded railway tracks | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Draft (under way) |
| Proposed by: | TrainTraveller |
| Tagging: | surface=* |
| Applies to: | way 
|
| Definition: | Proposal to use the attribute surface to describe the surface of embedded railway tracks |
| Statistics: |
|
| Rendered as: | * |
| Draft started: | 2025-02-23 |
| RFC start: | * |
| Vote end: | * |
Description
This proposal suggests extending the use of the surface=* tag to embedded railway tracks in OpenStreetMap. The surface tag was originally introduced to describe the physical material and composition of roads (highways). However, railway tracks also have surfaces that significantly impact their usability and maintenance.
Currently, there is no standardized way to describe the surface material around railway tracks. One approach would be to introduce a new tag, such as railway_surface=*, but this would require redundant tagging when a highway and a railway share the same physical path within a single Way in OSM.
Instead, this proposal suggests allowing surface=* to be used for railway=* ways, maintaining consistency and avoiding unnecessary duplication. This applies not only when a railway shares a path with a highway but also when the railway is mapped separately from the highway or when there is no highway at all.
The use of surface=* together with railway=* implies that the railway track is embedded in the material described by the surface=* tag, unless the embedded=* tag is present and specifies otherwise.
This proposal does not address railway tracks that are not embedded or that have visible sleepers.
Rationale
1. Consistency with existing usage: The surface of a railway track is just as relevant as the surface of a highway in terms of usability and mapping needs.
2. Avoiding redundant tagging: In cases where a highway and railway share the same physical path (e.g., a tramway embedded in an asphalt road), both could be described with a single surface tag.
3. Common practice in mapping: Many mappers already apply the surface tag to railway tracks informally, so formalizing this usage would align with existing mapping habits.
4. Sufficient range of values: The surface tag already provides a sufficient range of distinct values to accurately describe the material beside and between the rails of embedded railway tracks.
Tagging
surface=* can be applied to railway=tram and similar embedded railway tracks, such as street-crossing or industrial tracks, where the surface material is relevant.
If a railway shares the same physical path as a road, the surface=* value applies to both.
If a highway and a railway are mapped as a single way but actually run parallel with different surface materials, the surface of the railway track can be described using railway:surface=* while surface=* applies only to the highway.
If a railway is mapped separately from a highway or there is no associated highway, surface=* can still be used in the same way as for highways to describe the material beside and between the rails.
Special Cases
Railway tracks with multiple surface materials:
Areas consisting of multiple materials can be described using a multi-value attribute, such as surface=asphalt;concrete, especially when the different materials are not clearly separated.
However, if the different materials are distinctly separated by the rails, additional tags such as between_rails:surface=* or beside_rails:surface=* can be used to describe specific areas of the railway track. These attributes are not only useful for cases where different materials exist but also when only one side of the rails is embedded while the other remains exposed.
It should be noted that these additional tags are not part of this proposal but will be covered in a separate proposal: Proposal:Surface_between_and_beside_rails.
Examples
| OSM-tag | Track type | Variants | Notes | Picture |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| surface=asphalt | ||||
| surface=concrete | ||||
| surface=concrete:plates | ||||
| surface=grass | ||||
| surface=gravel |
Compatibility with existing data
- Existing surface=* tags remain unchanged for highways and paths.
- Mappers who prefer a separate tag can continue using additional attributes, but the surface tag would provide a simple and unified approach.
Comments
Please leave comments on the discussion page.
See Also
Voting
not yet started!