Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail (Michael Reichert)
> 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
Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?
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.openstreetmap.org/way/558176641 Regards, Marc ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th 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 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? My suggestion to use (for example) 3rail instead of 3rd_rail was also for the benefit of non-English speakers. I have seen countless examples of "1rd" and "5st" and similar errors. Describing it as a 3-rail or 4-rail system is IMHO less likely to result in mis-spelt tags.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail
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 > 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. There might be a maglev system somewhere using two conductor rails, which would then be the 1st and 2nd? Remember we are discussing the power supply, not the running rails. The power supply only needs the 3rd and 4th. Take away the running rails, jack up the train, and you could still get the motors to turn (safety systems permitting). A serious question arises though... The Wuppertaler Schwebebahn get its power from the 2nd rail (it's a suspended monorail). What do we do with this? electrified=2nd_rail?___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail (Michael Reichert)
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 own electrical feeding arrangement. > It would also run the risk of confusion in the mappers mind - they would > read as far as electrified=rail in the tag wiki and miss the later option > for 4th rail. I'm happy to leave electrified=rail to mean 3rd rail if that > is what the group prefers. > Using electrified=rail to mean 3 rails and having a sub-tag for 4 rails is a bad thing. But perhaps there is a case for retaining electrified=rail to mean "It's electrified using rails rather than contact line but I don't know how many rails." You mentioned that contact lines are often visible on aerial imagery. Mappers may know a route is electrified by other means (such as a newspaper article saying the route has been electrified) but don't know how many rails there are, only that there is no sign of a contact line. Argument against it: there may be a contact line but the imagery is too coarse for it to be visible or the mapper doesn't have the skill to interpret the image correctly so uses electrified=rail where it should be electrified=yes. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail
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
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail
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 >To: tagging@openstreetmap.org >Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail > (Colin Smale) >Message-ID: >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
Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track
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, agriculture (and maybe >>> mineral extraction/energy). >>> >> >> They HAVE to have one of those uses? Really? No exceptions. >> > > Sorry, I could probably worded that better, but a number of our tracks > follow power line / gas pipeline easements, but are open to the public to > use. > > Others branch off from a road, through the bush down to a fishing / > swimming spot on the creek / river / dam. > > Others cross through private property, but are an accepted way to get from > here to there, & are in some cases even named, despite being 4wd only & > track type 3 - 5! > > I suppose "farm" tracks that go around the various paddocks on a property > could be called agricultural, but they are usually just a means of getting > to those areas, & are frequently open to the public on a "permissive" basis. > > So I'm sorry, but I have to emphasise that all tracks are not for forestry > or agricultural use only. > > +10 I grew up in an area with little to no agriculture and where the logging dried up decades ago, but it still has tracks. They aren't just leftovers. FWIW my go-to online dictionary defines [1] a track as: > 1. A rough path or road, typically one beaten by use rather than > constructed. > *‘follow the track to the farm’* > 1.1 A prepared course or circuit for athletes, horses, motor vehicles, > bicycles, or dogs to race on. > *‘a Formula One Grand Prix track’* > - > > 1.2 mass noun The sport of running on a track. > *‘the four running disciplines of track, road, country, and fell’* > (Before quickly diverging into entirely non-transport related items) As they claim to be "powered by Oxford" and giving a UK dictionary I think it's fair to say this definition is for British English. I really don't understand the OSM community's fondness for elevating agriculture and forestry above all else for this tag, but if we want to exclude things that are clearly tracks from our highway=track definition, please suggest an alternate road classification we can use for: Ways for two track vehicles that 1. tend to go around rather than through obstacles 2. are minimally improved as the need arises 3. aren't proper service roads 4. don't form a proper part of the road network 5. in many cases you'd be wary of using for low clearance vehicles. I think most people would take one look at them and say "that's a track", and barring evidence that would lead to 'service=driveway', I would tend to agree. Remember that in much of the world we haven't been maintaining these ways for the last thousand years as countries have risen and fallen and haven't yet fully integrated every possible route into the proper road network. I do not want to find myself in a situation where the average router tries to send me down vastly inferior ways because OSM refuses to call these what they are. [1]: https://www.lexico.com/definition/track ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail (Colin Smale)
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
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail (Michael Reichert)
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 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 own electrical feeding arrangement. It would also run the risk of confusion in the mappers mind - they would read as far as electrified=rail in the tag wiki and miss the later option for 4th rail. I'm happy to leave electrified=rail to mean 3rd rail if that is what the group prefers. Leaving electrified=rail to mean only 3rd rail has the advantage that it reflects the current usage - with the exception of the London network (which I will retag) and the very small Milan Metro 1 line (which I'm also happy to retag). 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 best regards, Garry ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail (Colin Smale)
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] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail (Paul Allen)
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
