[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail
garry.keenor at gmail.com
Sat Jun 13 16:50:41 UTC 2020
"3rd rail" and "4th rail" are universally recognized terms. I am
electrification engineer, and I have worked with other electrification
engineers from various countries. Let's not confuse matters. :-)
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 12:30, Peter Neale via Tagging <
tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> At the risk of being called pedantic, or frivolous, surely it should be,
> "1st+2nd+3rd+4th rail" (after all, it won't work without the 1st and 2nd
> ...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.
> Peter ;-)
> >Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 10:55:27 +0200
> >From: Colin Smale <colin.smale at xs4all.nl>
> >To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
> >Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail
> > (Colin Smale)
> >Message-ID: <e0482064088a2b48727cb169be3e212e at xs4all.nl>
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >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."
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging