[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail (Colin Smale)
colin.smale at xs4all.nl
Thu Jun 11 08:55:27 UTC 2020
Hi Garry, thanks for your reply. I am pleased to hear that the "related
issues" are already on the radar and I am more than happy to see them in
a following proposal.
One thought about 3rd_rail/4th_rail vs 3rail/4rail: The term "4th rail"
is actually semantically incorrect, and should really be "3rd+4th rail"
(after all, it won't work without the 3rd rail.) That problem would not
occur if we tag it as "4-rail" or "4rail."
On 2020-06-11 09:49, Garry Keenor wrote:
> Thanks for your comments. I'm a bit behind so I'll try to catch up with your comments to date.
> Re: 3rd_rail/4th_rail vs 3rail/4rail
> I really don't mind and will go with the majority. Not sure how you determine a majority with this process!
> Re: keeping electrified=rail to mean 3rd rail and have a new electrified=4th_rail or electrified=4rail We did discuss that as a group, and again if that is the majority preference, I would not have a problem with it.
> Voltages for individual rails
> We do have some thoughts on that which I will share in a later proposal, but I would like to keep this change discussion focused purely on electrification type.
> Dual voltage areas
> We do have a specific proposal/solution for that problem which I will share in a later proposal, but I would like to keep this change discussion focused purely on electrification type.
> 3 phase electrification
> II haven't thought about that one, let's get this proposal through the process and I'll put it on the list to think about.
> best regards,
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging