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 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.sm...@xs4all.nl> >To: tagging@openstreetmap.org >Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail > (Colin Smale) >Message-ID: <e0482064088a2b48727cb169be3e2...@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." >>Thanks, >>Colin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
