Opened 3 months ago

Last modified 9 days ago

#19982 new enhancement

tram_crossing and tram_level_crossing

Reported by: pch14@… Owned by: team
Priority: normal Milestone:
Component: Internal preset Version:
Keywords: railway tram crossing Cc:


Please make JOSM recognise the values tram_crossing and tram_level_crossing for key railway. The distinction sure is worth. The keys have some non-trivial usage numbers that are expected to grow, as the iD editor will make use of them sometime in the near future. As for visual representation, I have no idea, perhaps just the same as regular railway crossings?

Attachments (2)

railway_tram_level_crossing.json (8.0 KB) - added by skyper 3 months ago.
monthly numbers til Jun 2020
railway_tram_crossing.json (8.0 KB) - added by skyper 3 months ago.
monthly numbers til June 2020

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (12)

comment:1 Changed 3 months ago by skyper

Where is the proposal for this new tag changing established tagging?
What is the difference to established crossing and level_crossing?
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?

comment:2 Changed 3 months ago by skyper

Component: CoreInternal preset
Keywords: railway tram crossing added

comment:3 Changed 3 months ago by pch14@…

Hello skyper, the proposal of course is in the OSM-Wiki, There are indeed reasons to have tram_crossing tagged explicitly - examining the railway line for tram is not enough, you never know how the crossing looks like on location, most often its just rails embedded in a paved road surface, nothing like a railway crossing; Sometimes it may appear quite a lot like a real railway crossing, eg. when, as you write, tram shares way with light rail. Then I expect mappers to choose the most adequate value. One more value only adds choice.

I stumbled upon this, as I was trying to figure out, why a certain pedestrian router (for blind people), that I happen to care about, took great detours. Turned out, that, unlike JOSM, the iD editor suggests to connect all ways crossing trams, which nowadays very often do not even have a shared node, and sure some users followed the advice and ended up with a railway=crossing. I complained in their forums, and a developer there found that tram_crossing tag and in the current version of this editor it is already in use.

As the number of such nodes is expected to grow, I'd consider it appropriate, if JOSM supports the value too, i.e. not render a blue dot, perhaps even have the value in the dropdown menu with the available values of the railway key. I explicitly do not endorse to flag any trams crossing highways or footways by the validator ;)

comment:4 Changed 3 months ago by skyper

That is not a proposal but more or less a stub. The difference between crossing and tram_crossing is not sorted out. Unlike level_crossing, I do not see any advantage in this tag as crossing can already be all, from a crossing without any lights to almost a full crossing with barriers.

In general, if we really need a different primary tag, I'd prefer something like light_crossing or second_level_crossing or similar without a vehicle type.

How about using one or two new subtags instead of primary tags 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.

comment:5 Changed 3 months ago by pch14@…

Hello skyper, I am not into inventing anything, its just about a value, which is partly autocreated by a widely used editor in their validation stage. All it would take were two new rules in elemstyles.xml - but well, if it is so controversial, so much for that.

comment:6 Changed 3 months ago by skyper

Hi pch14, sorry, I never intended to get personal. Hope you did not perceive it that way.

Following your words, iD developers should know the answers to my questions as they support the tags.
They probably cannot tell you the numbers introduced (semi-)automatically. So I cannot look at the number of uses to tell if the tags are popular. How many of these tags were added with a different editor than iD?

As the tags were never proposed properly, despite the wiki pages stating that, I would go for deprecating it right, now, in favor of subtags.

comment:7 Changed 3 months ago by pch14@…

Hello skyper, I see you took the discussion to the OSM Wiki, where it belongs. I added a little bit "pro" to the discussion.

Just for the record: The number now is 5155 for tram_level_crossing, and 5144 for tram_crossing. While waiting, we can see how iD validator suggestions impact the map ;)

Changed 3 months ago by skyper

monthly numbers til Jun 2020

Changed 3 months ago by skyper

Attachment: railway_tram_crossing.json added

monthly numbers til June 2020

comment:8 Changed 3 months ago by skyper

We need the numbers from the first week of September. Only found them til June: 1621 (level) and 2258

comment:9 Changed 3 months ago by pch14@… also has no recent data, 26 hours passed, taginfo numbers are 5169 for tram_level_crossing, and 5158 for tram_crossing, i.e. every other hour, one gets added. Resistence will be futile.

comment:10 Changed 9 days ago by pch14@…

taghistory now has got the numbers. Indeed starting in September 2020, a sharp rise in usage can be seen.

Modify Ticket

Change Properties
Set your email in Preferences
as new The owner will remain team.
as The resolution will be set.
to The owner will be changed from team to the specified user.
The owner will change to
as duplicate The resolution will be set to duplicate.The specified ticket will be cross-referenced with this ticket
The owner will be changed from team to anonymous.

Add Comment

E-mail address and name can be saved in the Preferences.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.