Talk:Proposed features/Railway crossing safety level
So let's discuss :)
Here got issues (that i currently got in head) that need to be discuss about it
Correct my crappy English :p
I would like too form nice looking proposal but i'm not good in English (my gramma sux), so i request to correct me and or even rewrite proposal to more proper correct English -Shadowriver 17:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
It's can be used outside of rails?
How about number defining safety level and use barrier names or just barrier for highest level? -Shadowriver 17:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Based on the types of crossing we have in the UK, I would suggest:
Full_Barrier - crossings with barriers which cross the whole road, also have lights.
Half_Barrier - crossings with barriers which only block half of the road, also have lights.
Gates - crossings protected by swing gates, which are worked by the railway. May have lights.
Lights - crossings protected only by lights.
Marked - Open crossings, marked by signs and road markings.
User - Crossings operated by the user, usually barriers or gates. May also have lights and/or telephone.
Unmarked - Crossings which are unmarked.
Most footpath crossings are probably best described as Unmarked, but with gates or stiles marked on the footpaths at the railway boundaries, where they exist.
Might this whole proposal be best as an extension of crossing=*, which gives greater details of railway=crossing? Should crossing=* also refer to railway=level_crossing?
--Kennioje 15:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)