From what I can tell, it's what Rapid puts in building= for its 'Office Building" preset, so if you want it to be different, poke bhousel :)

For those wondering what's going on here -- the Forest Hill Flyover was opened as of the day this edit was made (see https://www.trains.com/pro/freight/chicago-railroads-celebrate-completion-of-forest-hill-flyover/ for details). This edit is considered "interim" because it is a best-effort interpolation of the track infrastructure to remove the at-grade crossings and shoofly trackage; we'll need 2026 aerials to come up with a final map for this.

You'll want to take that up with bhousel (the Rapid maintainer) -- I'm following Rapid's logic re: crossing:signals these days. (The overall intent is to deprecate the distinctions in crossings=* in favor of separate tagging for markings, signals, and other crossing properties.)

Please do not glue landuse to roads -- it makes editing the map much more difficult and is very obnoxious to clean up after.

Yeah -- I had to prune out a duplicate way from @watmildon's conflict resolution work (had them upload the change because iD barfed when I tried to resolve it myself and I don't use JOSM). (As a sidenote: part of the reason we're hitting snags may have to do with the fact I'm removing some of the non-bridges on the rail line as there are several places along the line where concrete box-type culvert structures were mapped as bridges instead.

A visual verification of the bell being present is sufficient (it's generally found atop one or both of the sign/light masts at the crossing)

DOT# 529617W has been closed since 1985 -- I suspect that bogon is an issue with the underlying MDOT dataset. Also, are you proposing that we use ref= for FRA IDs and not ref:fra_crossing=?

It was taken from the FRA GIS record for crossing 675158C -- it could very well be an internal/unsigned ref though.

Last but not least for now, while you're out by Tomball, the Holderrieth Rd (FRA 597100E, OSM node/1425821570) has a minor FIXME on it, and there's also the issue in Tomball itself of the possible humped crossing warnings on the Main Street/FM2920 crossing (FRA ID 597102T, OSM node/340144640) -- I left a note where Streetside shows the W10-5 humped crossing warning on the EB approach to be

Also, closer to home, there are the crossings at Landry Blvd (near Old Louetta Road, FRA ID 597095K, OSM
node/3755972488 for the active track) and Cypress Creek Parkway (between TX 249 & Cutten Road, adjacent to Willowbrook Mall, FRA ID 597091H, OSM Nodes 1425821592 & 1425821579) although the last one is more advanced due to the difference between "crossing:barrier=full" and "crossing:barrier=double_half" coming into play

If you want a place to start though, Agg Road crossing (FRA ID 597101L,
OSM node/1425821593) SSE of Tomball has a FIXME on it

Most of the issues lie further NNW on the line (there are several crossings further out in the sticks with FIXME tags due to bad data) -- I was able to get a fairly reliable dataset within Houston using aerial/birdseye imagery + what street-level shots were available to augment/verify the grade crossing reports.

Thanks for pointing that out, it seems to have been detritus from the TIGER import that I'll have to keep an eye out for in the future.

The access=unknown was added to denote the presence of conflicting access information (i.e. a private crossing on something that's mapped as if it were a public street ROW). It could very well be fair to map the access=private restriction on the crossing ways with ownership=private on the crossing node, though -- the notion of a "private crossing" generally implies that public access is foreclosed save for a few select exceptions. (In fact, private crossing signage generally carries the necessary verbiage to have the same weight as a posted "No Trespassing" sign).