[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 12:30, Peter Neale via Tagging <
tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> ...or (almost getting serious now) we could just assume that, if the 3rd
> rail is mentioned, then the 1st and 2nd must be there (otherwise it
> wouldn't be 3rd rail) and, if the 4th rail is mentioned, then the 1st, 2nd
> and 3rd must also be there.
>

Please desist from pedantic frivolity.  It only encourages others to follow
suit
by saying things like "3 rail and 4 rail are grammatically better" and then
where
would we be?

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200611/a9c2fb83/attachment.htm>