Talk:Tag:railway=crossing

crossing=traffic_signals on railway crossings

Is there a reason that this tag is mentioned here? I know of no instance where pedestrian signal heads are used as the primary means of controlling traffic of any sort across a level crossing; even situations where highway signals provide the sole control of traffic across a heavy-rail level crossing are rare, generally being limited to low-speed industrial tracks here in the US by the applicable railroad regulation. Trams (light-rail vehicles) may be traffic-signal controlled when running in mixed-traffic alignments, such as in streetcar systems, but don't we have a railway=tram_level_crossing we can use for that situation? It doesn't help that there are 11325 uses already to go through, as per this overpass-turbo query.

--UrbanUnPlanner (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

No, railway=tram_crossing itself is a heavily debated new tag introduced by iD and some others. --- Kovposch (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Supervising

@SekeRob: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:railway%3Dcrossing&oldid=2369015 supervised=* is still by far the more numerous on both railway=crossing (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/railway=crossing#combinations ~4k vs ~2k) and railway=level_crossing (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/railway=level_crossing#combinations ~16.5k vs ~9k). From where is it deprecated? There doesn't seem to be an updating campaign. You didn't even created a page, let alone redirect for it. If anything, it should be used the supervision method, while supervised=* for when it is supervised. I can imagine case there is supervision equipment and facility, while not often or not at all used. Although i appreciate the "new" tag, I can only find criticism https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/14747 which I concur with as not being a replacement. OpenRailwayMap seems to be lacking in at least informing the rest of the community. OpenRailwayMap/Tagging#Level_crossings doesn't try to explain crossing:supervision=yes either. The "Type of supervision" and "technical equipment" for crossing:supervision=automatic points to my thinking. Furthermore, time interval doesn't make sense as crossing:supervision:conditional=* to repeat or have a different in each condition. --- Kovposch (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

What about cyclists?

The Wiki text "A point where pedestrians may cross a railway." sounds like it's limited to pedestrians only. What if cyclists are also allowed to use the crossing (without dismounting)? Shouldn't that be mentioned in the text? For example: "A point where pedestrians (and maybe cyclists) may cross a railway." I know such crossings in Germany (e.g. with a traffic sign DE:260,1022-10 which means: not allowed for motor vehicles, but allowed for bicycles) – and pedestrians are allowed to use it, too. It's not a pure cycleway.

And furthermore: perhaps it's also possible that a (pure) highway=cycleway crosses a railway? I don't know of such a case, but it could perhaps exist. Should this then be tagged with railway=crossing or railway=level_crossing (even if it's only a narrow cycleway)? I would use railway=crossing I think, but the Wiki text should then perhaps read like this: "A point where pedestrians (or cyclists) may cross a railway." Goodidea (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The way I see it is that it depends on how much it compares with other highways: A highway=path — a highway which doesn't support motorised traffic but supports bicycles — is comparable to a highway=footway and I see railway=crossing as appropriate but if it's built more like a proper street (as it is quite common in the Netherlands) — one which is likely tagged as highway=cycleway — then railway=level_crossing is more sound in my eyes. In any case, I definitively agree that cycling infrastructure really needs a better definition for level crossings. --ManuelB701 (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)