> Are the crossing IDs visible on-the-ground, just as bridge numbers are?
As it happened, I walked past this one today:
5821 Eastern North and East OAKBUTTS YMS 5 26 54.029950
-1.052086 UWCT Open 04/01/2024 04/04/2026 C 8
9019 Eastern North and East OAKBUTTS (FPW) YMS 5 26 54.029950
-1.052086 FPW Open 26/03/2025 24/06/2028 D 6
It is at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2367064164
There is one crossing, but two gates - a foot gate with just the usual
"look both ways" and "another train might be coming" warnings. The
adjacent agricultural track has a wider gate, a phone on each side, and
instructions to phone ahead when crossing with vehicles and animals.
The crossing is labelled "Strensall SB", and the Network Rail Track
access sign is separately signed "Oakbutts (something)". Trains sound
the horn on approach. The crossing seems pretty safe to me because the
line is quiet, you can see signals both ways and you can hear trains coming.
Just towards York from there is
5820 Eastern North and East MANOR FARM YMS 5 3 54.026835
-1.056729 UWCT Open 04/01/2024 04/04/2026 C 8
that is private agricultural access only. Trains do not sound the horn
on approach.
On 09/11/2025 22:06, Jez Nicholson wrote:
So... From what I'm reading here, the "hazard" is the makeup of the
crossing itself, yes? And we could capture the attributes of the
crossing through on-the-ground observations. Obviously it is
ultimately the trains, but it's more that the design/implementation of
the crossing could put you at risk.
Are the crossing IDs visible on-the-ground, just as bridge numbers
are? They could be captured and the Network Rail data linked to by
anyway strongly interested.
I feel that the hazard ratings are probably made up of score per 'bad'
attribute.
(snip)
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
