Thanks Paul - I messed up the wiki edit, should be fixed now.
best regards,
Garry
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Colin,
Thanks for your comments. I'm a bit behind so I'll try to catch up with
your comments to date.
Re: 3rd_rail/4th_rail vs 3rail/4rail
I really don't mind and will go with the majority. Not sure how you
determine a majority with this process!
Re: keeping electrified=rail to mean 3rd rail and
Michael,
Thanks for your comments. I'm a bit behind so I'll try to catch up with
your comments to date.
Re: 3rd_rail/4th_rail vs 3rail/4rail
I really don't mind and will go with the majority. Not sure how you
determine a majority with this process!
Re: using electrified=rail to mean (3rd or 4th
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 "3
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 04:25, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 11:31, Paul Allen wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 02:10, Mike Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think anyone is saying that tracks can't have additional uses,
>>> just that one of those uses has to be forestry,
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 rails)!
...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 wo
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 12:30, Peter Neale via Tagging <
tagging@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, th
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 08:57, Garry Keenor 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 o
On 2020-06-11 13:28, Peter Neale via Tagging 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
> rails)!
>
> ...or (almost getting serious now) we could just assume that, if the 3rd rail
On 2020-06-11 13:36, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 12:30, Peter Neale via Tagging
> 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
Hello,
Le 10.06.20 à 04:03, Jack Armstrong a écrit :
> Users have been adding pedestrian crossing tags on ways
I don't see 2 crossing.
I only see 1 crossing https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7598863281
between a footway https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/813492687
and a tertiary road https://www.
> Using electrified=rail to mean 3 rails and having a sub-tag for 4 rails
is a bad
thing.
+1
Volker
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
12 matches
Mail list logo
