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

Colin Smale colin.smale at xs4all.nl
Thu Jun 11 11:55:37 UTC 2020

On 2020-06-11 13:36, Paul Allen wrote:

> 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?

My suggestion to use (for example) 3rail instead of 3rd_rail was also
for the benefit of non-English speakers. I have seen countless examples
of "1rd" and "5st" and similar errors. Describing it as a 3-rail or
4-rail system is IMHO less likely to result in mis-spelt tags.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200611/04f3dcd8/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list