[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail (Michael Reichert)

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 11 11:47:27 UTC 2020

On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 08:57, Garry Keenor <garry.keenor at gmail.com> wrote:

> Re: using electrified=rail to mean (3rd or 4th rail)
> I'm not in favour of this one - railway electrification engineers (of
> which I am one) do not consider 4th rail to be a special case of 3rd rail,
> but rather a distinct system with its own electrical feeding arrangement.
> It would also run the risk of confusion in the mappers mind - they would
> read as far as electrified=rail in the tag wiki and miss the later option
> for 4th rail. I'm happy to leave electrified=rail to mean 3rd rail if that
> is what the group prefers.

Using electrified=rail to mean 3 rails and having a sub-tag for 4 rails is
a bad
thing.  But perhaps there is a case for retaining electrified=rail to mean
electrified using rails rather than contact line but I don't know how many
You mentioned that contact lines are often visible on aerial imagery.
may know a route is electrified by other means (such as a newspaper article
saying the route has been electrified) but don't know how many rails there
only that there is no sign of a contact line.

Argument against it: there may be a contact line but the imagery is too
coarse for it to be visible or the mapper doesn't have the skill to
interpret the image correctly so uses electrified=rail where it
should be electrified=yes.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200611/373dabfb/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list