Dear Garry, Thank you for your emails. Great to hear that more and more countries are benefiting from the ORM project.
I agree with the plan for a ‘4th_rail’ tag and agree with Maarten that we should change the ‘rail’ tag to ‘3rd_rail’. If I remember correctly, in the past it was already possible to view the electrification map beta on a website from Michael (CC). Moreover, you can download the JOSM editor and try out the electrification style there; this allows you to easily add data while seeing the result at the same time. If you need any help with setting that up, feel free to send me an email. Best regards, Jeroen Wegdam > Op 6 jun. 2020 om 08:35 heeft Maarten Deen <[email protected]> het volgende > geschreven: > > On 2020-06-05 17:34, [email protected] wrote: >> Hi, a follow up to this. >> Specifically, in the UK we have a significant network of 4th rail >> electrification in London... around 250 route miles. At the moment >> this is tagged as electrified=rail, so there is no way of >> differentiating it from 3rd rail (which we also have a lot of, in the >> same area). The system is fundamentally different from 3rd rail, which >> uses the running rails asthe return path rather than a dedicated >> return rail. >> As far as I can establish, the only use of this system outside the UK >> is in Milan, but there may be others we're not aware of? >> We would therefore like to propose the use of electrified=4th_rail for >> these systems. We would obviously like to get views and build >> consensus before embarking on any tagging changes. > > I think that is a good addition. And tag 3rd rail systems as > electrified=3rd_rail as well. > There is also electrified:rail that specifies the type of contact (top, > bottom, side). Obvioudly you will use electrified:4th_rail=top/bottom/side > for 4th rail systems. > > Regards, > Maarten
