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, then the 1st, 2nd > and 3rd must also be there. > Please desist from pedantic frivolity. It only encourages others to follow suit by saying things like "3 rail and 4 rail are grammatically better" and then where would we be? -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
