Talk:Tag:railway=tram level crossing

Difference from railway=level_crossing?

The more common tag railway=level_crossing has also been sometimes used for the intersection of a railway=tram and another highway=*. I believe this should be mentioned. Also, in theory database users can query the interescting ways to determine of a crossing involves a railway=tram instead of a railway=rail (though this is somewhat complicated). --Jeisenbe (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't find anything about railway=level_crossing on the railway=tram page. About database query: how in this case you will understand, does the crossing equiped with barriers, lights or not?

I'm going to write a proposal for tags railway=tram_level_crossing and railway=tram_crossing soon. --literan (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

"does the crossing equiped with barriers, lights or not? " A railway=level_crossing on railway=tram can surely be default to none, if nothing else. More explicitly, how is it different from using crossing:barrier=no + crossing:light=no + crossing:bell=no on railway=rail? ---- Kovposch (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

+1
Still no proposal, or is only the link missing?
Additionally, I wonder if a vehicle type in the value is the right choice? Do we need an own tag for every transport vehicle on rails, now, instead of simply looking at the crossing way and its memberships? What should be used in cases of multiple vehicle types using the same rails?--Skyper (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

No, only two tags - for railways and tram ways. Or you know about any other rail ways, that have very many crossings with highways and different from these two rules of crossing? I do not. --literan (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I got mixed up with the dates. Still would appreciate a proper proposal.
Actually, I know only crossings with different infrastructure. The difference on legal rules seem to depend on the country. Still do not see any difference in a crossing of an industrial branch rail and a crossing of a tram rail. Similar is true for a crossing of a rail without any infrastructure on the country side. Talking about crossing of service roads inside the rail/tram yards there will be no difference at all.

Pretty much all over the world: Rail operates on signals (think twice about that!), tram operates on sight. Rail goes much faster than tram, the stopping distance is significantly longer; results not for the faint of heart.--Hungerburg (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

At least in my city, trams have signals in most places or the right of way, if it comes to crossing without any traffic_signal and/or crossing:lights. The industrial branch crossing some streets with only crossing:lights and no barriers meanwhile does not have any railway signals but needs to cross on sight though they have the right of way. My example of the yards is still true, too. Talking about less developed countries, even major railway crossing do not have any signals for railway nor for crossing traffic. --Skyper (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

In European cities (such as Vienn, Milano, Berlin, Moscow) majority of tram crossing are without lights. Look, for example, https://www.google.ru/maps/@45.4643927,9.1872943,3a,75y,311.79h,87.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swSqGohzS5iKzBPOIHxxWvw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.ru/maps/@52.5245031,13.3956297,3a,75y,236.14h,85.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUjHW7XK4Cbtw_HfQkpzFhQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 --literan (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/blob/release/CHANGELOG.md#2185 Apparently iD decides to adopt this. ---- Kovposch (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

This totally ignore railway=light_rail as well. ---- Kovposch (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

How can an editor software support such controversial tag? --Skyper (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Light rail is fully covered with the conventional railway=crossing combo, based on legal ordinance governing the operation of such, in my opinion at least. Tram though is sufficiently distinct from rail to merit differential treatment, by the mappers, not some algorithm, in my view, again.--Hungerburg (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

iD devs seem to care a lot about topology, so my guess is, that they will not change their stance on connecting trams with highways and flagging such in the validator. Personally, I consider the damage therefrom greatly diminished by using this non-standard term instead of the full blown railway=crossing. Just think of the number of streets, where a left turn will make drivers cross the tram rails, while a right turn will not. Of course, the answer will be, then map the lanes ot the street separately! In the end, it will be up to users, how much they trust the validator to do the right thing for them and follow that.--Hungerburg (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with iD flagging this situation but adding a controversial tag, with low numbers of use. Are you talking about overlapping highway=* and railway=tram or even one way with both tags? --Skyper (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not have a problem neither with flagging, but the affirmative action then applied by the validator would have created railway=crossing nodes all over the place, where a tram crosses a highway - along the most populated streets in the center of cities with trams several per km. The meaning of the tag would become zero. So I am in favor of that iD devs chose this tag here. Adjusting in the editing stage is much more efficient than adjusting in the consuming stage. Subtags would require changes in the interpreters justs as well.--Hungerburg (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Wait a minute. You need a proposal for adjusting that in OSM world. Please, just have a look at the numbers and you will find a lot railway=[level-]crossing with a parent railway=tram. What is the difference? Only interpreters which want to know the differences need to be adjusted with a subtag, while with a new primary value all interpreters are forced to be adjusted. --Skyper (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Use subtags instead

How about using one or two new subtags for railway=level_crossing and railway=crossing instead of a primary tag which could be added without changing the meaning of established tags and would be more precise as we could have one for the legal case and one for the architectural type of the crossing. --Skyper (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Why not using different tags? Here in Russia tramways and railroads are very different features. There are very big differencies in Road rules for crosiing of tram ways and railways. I think it's more convenient to use different tags --literan (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, I did not fully understand the differences but for me these diminish. Changing the meaning of an established tag by introducing a new tag should be discussed in advance and a proposal is needed to clarify its use and to determine the differences between the established tag and the new one. Overtaking is a feature of the road, primarily, and, in my eyes, is not enough for a new value, especially, if the same can be achieved with a subtag.
I think it is much smoother to use something like railway:crossing=tram_crossing instead. This way not every software needs to be adjusted and no established tag be changed. --Skyper (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Same as in Germany but this logic doesn't work out quite as well when you consider that in many countries, metros are governed using the same laws as tramways even though both are very different in operation (e.g. France considers both as "secondary railways" while Germany treats the former as a subset of the latter), neither are considered the same by everyday people nor by OSM (this is different to narrow gauge railways which do have separate workrules in Germany and are tagged separately in OSM, though the one of Harz is using EBO and not ESBO).
Reading the description proper, I as a user got very confused by this tag (at least it made me realise that not all tramway-highway crossings should be marked as such) as the definition in when to tag which them easily gets subjective (that is, I disagree with certain definitions) especially with the inclusion of light rail systems and pictograms used. For example, level crossings of the Frankfurt U-Bahn typically come with St. Andrew's crosses on a pole with a painted railway (not tramway!) crossing signs on the ground for pedestrians and cyclists, up in the north even with boom gates (though that one would unambiguously be considered a railway crossing) while the city's tramway either uses a tramway sign (typically custom) or a cross depending on the specific crossing and whether they have exclusive ROW or not. --ManuelB701 (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Status De Facto

Looking at the usage numbers, in the last two weeks they rose around 40 (tc) to 70 (tlc) per day. I suppose, mostly from people blindly clicking the validator suggestion within the iD editor. (Just a guess though, based on some otherwise inexplicable "ford=yes" that I stepped over in the past.) Is there a fixed number, for a tag's status to become "de facto"? At that rate, will it take a year, or will it take ten years? --Hungerburg (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

In the last six weeks, taginfo numbers rose 58 (tlc) rsp. 44 (tc) per day. That seems slow. Since then, someone decided to remap the trams in my home-town, using the iD editor, they alone created around 200 new crossings (total now 80 tlc, 167 tc, there were less than 10 total before.) I can only guess, but from looking at the commit history, they did use the new tag fully aware of its railway=crossing alternative and did not just blindly click iD suggestions. Much better that way, imagine the consequences for routing/navigation!--Hungerburg (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Changeing them back into railway=crossing would still be ok, as this new tag was introduced without proposal but changing the meaning of an established tag. Still I wait for an answer, why the vehicle type has to be in the main tag and what to do in situations where more than one rail vehicle type crosses. --Skyper (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Geozeisig: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:railway%3Dtram_level_crossing&oldid=2135805 Why is it "de facto" now? The head even includes railway=level_crossing "sometimes including tram crossings." ---- Kovposch (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

+1, it should rather get a banner about the dispute and its history! --Skyper (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Geozeisig: Please don't ignore prior questions directed at you when editing. iD　maintainer has also changed in the years. —— Kovposch (talk) 08:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't understand why the status of this tag shouldn't be de facto. Maybe I also have difficulties with the translation into German. --geozeisig (talk) 08:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm guessing both User:Hungerburg and User:Skyper are from German-speaking countries. They had the same question.
Ignoring the past, iD has basically disavowed railway=tram_level_crossing and railway=tram_crossing now. It's not only about the tag, but also any whether intersecting point between railway=tram and highway=* roads should be a railway=* at all. Having the numbers alone doesn't mean it must be "de facto".
—— Kovposch (talk) 07:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Because the use of this tag is not widely accepted, is not rendered or taken into account by applications, and was artificially introduced by iD. maro21 13:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Street running tramway

Is this tag and railway=tram_crossing only intended for crossings with reserved tracks (what the image on Tag:railway=tram_crossing suggests) or also where tram rails are embedded in the roadway? --Dafadllyn (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

proposed revert of iD's use of this tag

FYI: https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/pull/9306 proposes to change iD to not automatically add this tag anymore at crossings of tram lines with roads. Feedback on that would be appreciated. -- Tyr (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)