[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - More Consistency in Railway Tagging

Rovastar rovastar at hotmail.com
Sat Apr 13 17:18:22 UTC 2013


The example you gave for tunnels and bridges are the same for roads as well.
If you have a bridge or tunnel with 2 roads (one for each one-way) and a
train line(s) and footpath each will be a tagged with a separate bridge. So
in that regard rail is actually are consistent with the road network.

Also you say you want it better for simple mapping and other can do more
detailed mapping if they want to. I see no part of your proposal to add
additional tracks like is now yet you imply in the posts here that it is. If
you do think this then it doesn't not help the crossing example you gave as
we will have the same problem again.

Do you propose that we change *all* the currently mapped multi track rails
to conform to your new standard?
e.g. here there are hundreds of tracks/railways which IMHO accurately
reflects what is on the ground.

However what I do agree with you is that the rail guidelines should be more
detailed but I would go the other way with saying that all tracks should be
mapped not less for complete mapping. That is a common way of doing things
and going forward especially as we get more detailed mapping (it's slowly
coming to the US ;)) 

And I also agree that crossing multiple tracks are probably not the best
representation but a proposal for having them as relations would be best
where multiple lines are. 

View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Feature-Proposal-RFC-More-Consistency-in-Railway-Tagging-tp5756879p5756958.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

More information about the Tagging mailing list