Proposed features/Tramtrack on highway

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
"Tramtrack on highway"
Status: Rejected (inactive)
Proposed by: Tolstoi21
Tagging: railway=separately_mapped
Applies to: way
Definition: There is a tramway track (railway=tram) on a highway=*, but the tramway is mapped as a separate way.
RFC start: 2018-11-01
Vote start: 2018-11-19
Vote end: 2018-12-03

Proposal

Notify that a section of a highway factually has a tramtrack running on it and this space is shared with other vehicles, although the rails are mapped as separate ways.

Rationale

The railway=tram wiki page suggests mapping tramway tracks always alongside highways as a separate way (though possibly using the same nodes as the highway) even if they in fact run on the highway. There are many good reasons for this convention and it need not be changed.

Nevertheless other traffic should be notified that there is a track, physically, running on the highway. The need for such notification is particularly acute for bicycles, mopeds and other vehicles that have narrow tyres. The tramway tracks have deep indentations that narrow wheels can easily and dangerously slip into. This danger alone warrants a note to routing programs so that they can avoid routing e.g. bicycles through such streets.

Because the tramtracks are mapped as separate ways, a new tag is needed for the highway.

Examples

Tram tracks sharing road space with other vehicles including bicycles. https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.06676&mlon=19.92920#map=17/50.06676/19.92920

Tagging

Tagging is applicable only to highways on which there in fact are tramtracks.

If the tramtracks (railway=tram) run on a physically separate lane between highways or next to a highway, these adjacent highways should not be tagged.

Applies to

Ways. Nodes do not warrant a notification since a highway running (even almost) tangentially to tramtracks does not pose the danger mentioned above to narrow tyres.

Rendering

No need to render as the existence of the tramways is obvious in a glance of the map, but routing programs need this extra tag.

Features/Pages affected

External discussions

Comments

Please comment on the discussion page.

Voting

Instructions for voting
  • Log in to the wiki if you are not already logged in.
  • Scroll down to voting and click 'Edit source'. Copy and paste the appropriate code from this table on its own line at the bottom of the text area:
I approve this proposal yes {{vote|yes}} --~~~~
I oppose this proposal no {{vote|no}} reason --~~~~
Replace reason with your reason(s) for voting no.
I abstain from voting but have comments abstain {{vote|abstain}} comments --~~~~
If you want don't want to vote but have comments. Replace comments with your comments.

Note: The ~~~~ automatically inserts your name and the current date.

  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I don't think there is a reason to have separate tag for suggested cases. In my opinion, those are already being handled by highway lanes. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/444527815 as an example. --Mar4s (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. It seems that the proposed tagging doesn't agree with everyone, but I think that the reasoning behind this proposal is valid and the tags can be later appended. --DaFisch (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I would prefer the use of another tag that is not railway. The tracks are mapped on separate OSM ways, which have railway=tram or railway=rail. --Polyglot (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. "railway=separately_mapped" clearly indicates that exact track geometry is mapped separately --Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I think this follows the similar pattern for `highway=* + cycleway=track` with a separately mapped `highway=cycleway` well --Tordans (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
    • There seems to be a misunderstanding. If you want an analogy with separately mapped cycle ways, then have a look at the bicycle=use_sidepath tag. --Polyglot (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Dieterdreist (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --AgusQui (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I think that either railway=tram should either be mapped separately, or be used on the same way as an highway=*. Adding tags to say "a feature is mapped elsewhere" sounds like a "troll tag" to me, i.e. a misderection. --Gileri (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Our model of representing the world is imperfect. The issue is that railway=tram is mapped on separate OSM ways (because of different needs geometry wise, trams don't make 90 degree turns and one for each direction of travel), but now the highway they actually are on is missing the information that would be interesting to know for cyclists that there are tracks. This highway is mapped as a single OSM way for both directions of travel. I think this highway should get a hint using a tag like embedded_rails=tram | embedded_rails=railway as discussed on the tagging mailing list. It seems to be very complicated to get that point across. --Polyglot (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Please do not assume that I didn't get this point just because I disagree with it. Also, just because other features are not or can't be mapped with greater detail does not mean we should aim for mapping low-fidelity geometries or information. --Gileri (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Yeah, to add to the above answer and repeat a comment above, this tag would in some ways resemble the bicycle=use_sidepath tag, so this would not be a new concept nor a 'troll tag'. A bicycle access-tag was actually my original proposal, but Mateusz Konieczny and others made very wise arguments why this was a bad idea for this tag. Cf. the talk-page. --Tolstoi21 (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I think that bicycle=use_sidepath suffer a similar problem, but mainly because such legal rules are often ill-implemented on-the-ground, so they are ill-implemented in OSM. --Gileri (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Another problem with this tag is in case of multi-lanes road. For example a compulsory cycleway=lane may never cross/run on the Template:Railway=tram, should the highway bear railway=separately_mapped ? Why should cyclists (and routers) be wary of tracks that they wouldn't touch ? --Gileri (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I don't know whether it is considered bad form to vote on your own proposal, but here goes! --Tolstoi21 (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. The value could be better, but this is useful, so why not. --Zverik (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I'm not in love with the value, but the differentiation is most certainly needed. --Garylancelot 18:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Rza31 (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --RoxyNala (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. The change is useful. --vespax 21:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Although I think it is a good idea to have a tag that adds an attribute to the highway showing that it has embedded rails, I think it is not good to use highway=* and railway=* on the same way. It potentially confuses renderers. As explained on the tagging mailing list, I would rather define a new key embedded_rails=tram | embedded_rails=railway. It doesn't conflict with other existing tags and would allow even more details. --Rainero (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Sounds like a great tag! --Poliwrath 15:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I like the idea, but as Rainero pointed out, it doesn't have the ability to specify the type of railway(s). I think that an embedded_rails or lanes:embeded_rails would be more appropriate. Vorpalblade77-kaart (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I like the idea of adding a tag like this but I feel like it would be more beneficial to try and make the tag a little more detailed so that it designates a lane for tram use much like bus lanes work.Corban8 (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I also think it should be something like a bus lane, not tagged on a whole highway--MichNicole (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I like the gerneral idea of the new tag, but not the tags name. Raineros 'embedded_rails' should be a nice choice.--Gallseife (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Voting closed

Voting on this proposal has been closed.

It was rejected with 12 votes for and 8 votes against.

The community raised some issues. See the follow-up proposal.

Follow-Up Proposal

First of all, thank you to all who voted and/or commented on the proposal!

The vote ended in 20 votes cast in total, with 12 approving and 8 opposing votes. This gives an approval rating of 60%, so it is my understanding that the proposal cannot be approved without emendations.

Indeed, many approving votes added reservations about the tag values in the comments. Furthermore also many opposing votes commented positively about the idea of the tag, but opposed the proposal because of the specific proposed tag value.

A better tally of the votes would thus be:

  • 4/20 votes unambiguously opposing.
  • 8/20 votes approving of the idea, but opposing or apprehensive about the specific proposed tag values.
  • 8/20 votes unambiguously approving.


Which gives 16/20 votes approving of the idea (possibly with emendations) and 4/20 opposing. Consequently the idea itself enjoys an 80% approval rating.

Based on the comments and discussion on the tagging mailing list, the main argument against the original proposal was a clash with the railway=*-tag semantics. Many people (including: Rainero, Vorpalblade77-kaart, Gallseife, and originally also Mateusz Konieczny) have suggested a sui generis tag of embedded_rails=tram and embedded_rails=railway for the purpose.

My follow-up proposal would be: create the new embedded_rails=* tag with values embedded_rails=tram and embedded_rails=railway and link this tag-description page to (at least) the bicycle=* and railway=* tag-description pages.

It seems to me superfluous to have a new vote on the embedded_rails=* tag itself. The main problem with the original proposal was considered to be the clash with already existing tag-namespace. The new sui generis tag takes care of this. Voting again on the specific values of such a sui generis tag seems--to me--to be pointless, since the only point of contention would be whether the tag is descriptive enough or whether it can accept the needed values. It seems to me obvious that the embedded_rails=tram and embedded_rails=railway succeed in both regards.

I hope such an approach is considered kosher. I'll abstain from creating the new page for at least a week now. Please comment if you see dire problems with my follow-up proposal! If no substantial new problems come up in the discussion, I'll proceed as outlined above (and finally try to take decent pictures of tramlines both on a highway and on a separate track here in Helsinki).

--Tolstoi21 (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, the above suggestion was a stupid one! Please find a new, emended proposal here!

--Tolstoi21 (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)