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."
Thanks,
Colin
On 2020-06-11 09:49, Garry Keenor wrote:
> 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 have a new
> electrified=4th_rail or electrified=4rail We did discuss that as a group,
> and again if that is the majority preference, I would not have a problem with
> it.
>
> Voltages for individual rails
> We do have some thoughts on that which I will share in a later proposal, but
> I would like to keep this change discussion focused purely on electrification
> type.
>
> Dual voltage areas
> We do have a specific proposal/solution for that problem which I will share
> in a later proposal, but I would like to keep this change discussion focused
> purely on electrification type.
>
> 3 phase electrification
> II haven't thought about that one, let's get this proposal through the
> process and I'll put it on the list to think about.
>
> best regards,
>
> Garry
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
