[OSM-talk] railway=incline?

[Tomáš Tichý]

I agree that rack and funicular should be specific tag for "normal"
 railway types. The reason is, that there are railways, which are rack
 (or cable) driven only in part of their route. And there could be also
 rack tramway, funicular subway etc.
 So I propose following tagging scheme:
 railway=rail | light_rail | tram | subway ...
 rack = no (default) | yes | {more specific type} (e.g. Riggenbach, Abt ...)
 funicular ( or cable? ) = no | yes

 I also propose to use this scheme to tag electrified railways (whose
 can be clearly visual distinguished and therefore useful for
 orientation).
 electrified = no | yes | {more specific type} (e.g. caternary,
 third_rail, fourth_rail, ...)

 =TT=





 On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:58 PM, Alex Mauer <hawke at hawkesnest.net> wrote:
 > Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
 >  > I think I know only 1 rack system - Snowdon mountain railway in Wales,
 >  > but I've come across several funicular systems on holidays round Europe.
 >  There is a list of rack railways at
 >  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rack_railway#List_of_cog_and_rack_railways
 >
 >  > IMHO we should use railway=funicular and railway=rack. We can allow
 >  > railway=incline, but prefer the more specific one.
 >  I agree that we should prefer that people tag as specifically as
 >  possible, but I think the more specific tagging belongs in a separate key.
 >
 > >> "incline railway" seems to me to cover both systems, as well as some
 >  >> others, adequately (hence my suggestion of such for the TIGER
 >  >> migration, as there was and still is no "official" way to tag such
 >  >> railways.)
 >  > Does the Tiger data make a distinction?
 >  No.
 >
 >
 >
 >  -Alex Mauer "hawke"
 >
 >
 >  _______________________________________________
 >  talk mailing list
 >  talk at openstreetmap.org
 >  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
 >