[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Military=Coast-Guard & Rescue=Marine_Rescue

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

 Following on from
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-November/056482.html,
I've also put together a proposal to make some changes to the existing
Coast Guard pages.

Please visit https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Marine_rescue & have a
look.

All comments welcome either here or on the Talk page.

(& as I just said, these are my first actual proposals, so please be
gentle!)

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency=Rescue Stations

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Following on from
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-November/056482.html,
I've put together a proposal to make some changes & additions under the
Emergency key.

Please visit https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Rescue_Stations & have a
look.

All comments welcome either here or on the Talk page.

(It's my first actual proposal, so please be gentle!)

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 04:22, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> you guys are finding real world examples for every weird situation that
> nobody expected to even exist. Traffic lights for rock fall somewhere?
>

No actual traffic lights, but how about a posted No Waiting zone? :-)

https://parks.des.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0021/162651/mt-maroon-rockfall.jpg

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 5. Dec 2020, at 22:34, Niels Elgaard Larsen  wrote:
> 
> Volker Schmidt:
>> Hi,
> 
>> In the case of signed hazards, I see two alternative ways of tagging the 
>> signing:
>>  * (only for nodes and ways highway segments) by adding source:xxx=sign like 
>> we do
>>with speed limits
> 
> I this it the best option.
> 
>>  * by mapping the relative signs as nodes
> 
> That often will not work. For example in Denmark on road with high speed 
> limits animal crossing hazards are usually signed ahead of the hazard 


yes, signs are usually ahead of the hazard. We can do both (the signs are best 
when it comes to verifiability, but if you want routers to warn you, highway 
properties or nodes on the highway bear a much greater probability of being 
implemented)

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

[Niels Elgaard Larsen]

Volker Schmidt:

Hi,



In the case of signed hazards, I see two alternative ways of tagging the 
signing:

  * (only for nodes and ways highway segments) by adding source:xxx=sign like 
we do
with speed limits


I this it the best option.


  * by mapping the relative signs as nodes


That often will not work. For example in Denmark on road with high speed limits 
animal crossing hazards are usually signed ahead of the hazard like this:


https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo=7G5cfeYYHs7T_TQD4l-ifw=true=true=55.54605389678716=9.557919996586406=17

The same for hidden driveways in North America.



Insertion of signposted hazards do not require any assessment of the presence of the 
hazard by the mapper.


Signposted hazards are most often signalling dangers for vehicle drivers. Let's take 
the sign for hazard=cyclists (crossing), which warns clearly the vehicle drivers on 
the carriageway, that there could be cyclists crossing.

There is normally no such warning on the crossing cyclists' path.



We have warning signs for speed bumps on bicycle lanes and for low height when a 
bicycle lane go under a low brige.


This of course should be tagged by using traffic_calming and max_height on the 
highway=cycleway


Then we have also the asymmetric situations: e.g. car drivers are warned by a sign 
that there will be cyclists crossing, but the (bigger) hazard of cars hitting the 
cyclists on the same crossing is not signposted for cyclists.


Around here I think that is reasonable because it is usually when a road is crossed 
by a small unpaved path, that is used by cyclists.


If it is a real cycle path it would have a yield sign for cyclists.


--
Niels Elgaard Larsen

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Sa., 5. Dez. 2020 um 21:37 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt :

> Traffic lights triggered by avalanches! Is that close enough, Martin?
>
>
> https://elearning.unipd.it/scuolaamv/pluginfile.php/19629/mod_resource/content/1/04_02%20difesa%20dalla%20valanghe.pdf
>


I knew you would deliver :)

interesting presentation, thank you Volker

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

[Volker Schmidt]

Traffic lights triggered by avalanches! Is that close enough, Martin?

https://elearning.unipd.it/scuolaamv/pluginfile.php/19629/mod_resource/content/1/04_02%20difesa%20dalla%20valanghe.pdf

I remember I saw them for the first time in 1985 in the Val Zoldana,
Provincia di Belluno (SP251), but had no idea how they worked. The document
above explains it.
:-)

Volker

On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 19:22, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> >
> > Also at much larger airports. Brize Norton
> > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Brize_Norton), for example.
>
>
> you guys are finding real world examples for every weird situation that
> nobody expected to even exist. Traffic lights for rock fall somewhere?
>
> Cheers Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

I want to address the points that were raised on crossings.

As we already have highway=crossing, I have resisted adding new hazard=*
values for crossing hazards, as that is properly the domain of the
highway=crossing tag.  For golf cart crossing, there is already an
established tag combination highway=crossing + golf_cart=yes.  This was
already described on the wiki page for golf_cart, and I edited the wiki
page for highway=crossing to match this.

Considering this, I've updated the text on hazard=bicycle to reflect that
it is specifically about the hazard of cyclists in the roadway, and not for
bicycle crossings, which also has its own existing tagging.

This leaves hazard=school_crossing as the sole remaining "crossing"
hazard.  There are only a few usages of it, and I am leaning strongly
towards removing from the proposal entirely as it seems that a school
crossing belongs more properly within the scope of highway=crossing.

Lastly, the specific case of hazard=low_flying_aircraft is not a crossing
hazard, as the hazard is a distraction to motorists or perhaps jetwash
rather than collision, as with a crossing.  The only actual "airplane
crossing" that I am aware of is the case of the Gibraltar airport which has
a road that crosses the airport runway.  However, this is an exceptionally
rare case, and in any case, it too would belong under highway=crossing.

On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 12:43 PM Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> Hi,
> I have been following this proposal with interest. I often have tried to
> tag hazards, and not found a good ways of doing it.
> We are now compiling a long list of hazards, including golf players
> crossing the road, but I see some basic aspects which are not being
> addressed (unless I missed something):
>
> I would like to see signposted hazards completely separately tagged from
> hazards that the mapper perceives in a place, but which are not signed.
>
> Signed hazards should be mapped.
>
>- on nodes, if the extension of the hazard is point-like (example:
>dangerous railway crossing)
>- on ways, if the hazard exists along a highway (example: animals
>crossing zones)
>- (possibly) on areas, if the hazard is present in an area (example:
>landslides)
>
> In the case of signed hazards, I see two alternative ways of tagging the
> signing:
>
>- (only for nodes and ways highway segments) by adding source:xxx=sign
>like we do with speed limits
>- by mapping the relative signs as nodes
>
> Insertion of signposted hazards do not require any assessment of the
> presence of the hazard by the mapper.
>
> Signposted hazards are most often signalling dangers for vehicle drivers.
> Let's take the sign for hazard=cyclists (crossing), which warns clearly the
> vehicle drivers on the carriageway, that there could be cyclists crossing.
> There is normally no such warning on the crossing cyclists' path.
> There are exceptions of hazard warnings for both parties like a "cyclists
> sharing the road" sign, but that's the only one that comes to mind.
>
> Another aspect that should be defined: Are writings or pictograms on the
> road surface equivalent to vertical traffic signs?
>
>
> A completely different story are unsigned hazards with no signs on the
> ground, i.e. situations perceived as a hazard by the mapper.
> These are the tricky ones. I map cycling infrastructure, hence my examples
> come from that perspective.
> Examples:
>
>- foot-cycle crosswalks where there is a sign-posted speed limit of
>30km/h, but where 90% of the cars pass with speeds far exceeding that value
>and making the place really dangerous
>- a two-way cycle path that is parallel to a main road and crosses  a
>side road with a foot.bicycle crosswalk - car drivers entering the side
>road regularly overlook cyclists which ride in the same direction as they
>drive (to my knowledge the major cause of cyclists being killed in many
>countries. These in most cases in my part of the world have no danger
>signs.
>- And now consider the same situation with a row of trees between the
>cycle path and the main carriage way.
>- In my part of the world authorities put all kinds of bollards,
>arches, chicanes on cycleways (supposedly for the safety of cyclists, but
>in reality to keep car drivers from parking there). Many of these are grey
>metal objects that become invisible at night even if you have a good cycle
>light, as they have no reflective markers on them.
>
> The problem here is that the tagging will be based on my perceived version
> of ground truth. If I am a cyclist, I may be good at spotting hazards for
> cyclists. If I am a horse rider I will be good at mapping hazards for horse
> riders.
>
> Then we have also the asymmetric situations: e.g. car drivers are warned
> by a sign that there will be cyclists crossing, but the (bigger) hazard of
> cars hitting the cyclists on the same crossing is not signposted for
> cyclists.
>
> Volker
>
>

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

[Yves via Tagging]

Le 5 décembre 2020 19:19:31 GMT+01:00, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 a écrit :
>
>you guys are finding real world examples for every weird situation that nobody 
>expected to even exist. Traffic lights for rock fall somewhere?
>
>Cheers Martin  
They are no so rare, I remember one going down from La Grave toward Grenoble in 
the alps. No picture at hand though, and not sure they belong or not to the 
road section that has to be rebuilt. 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

[Joseph Eisenberg]

The solution to the lack of official signs is to petition your local
government to add the signs or pavement markings or some other visible
warning of the hazard. This will have much more real-world impact than
adding a tag to OpenStreetMap. And it will make it possible to verifiably
add the tag of the hazard.

In my part of the world, cyclists sometimes spray-paint the pavement with
warnings to mark the location of hazards like tree roots or pot-holes or
dangerous crossings. While these are not official markings, they exist and
are verifiable, so they could also be mapped.

(Before considering heading out with a can of spray-paint, please check
your local vandalism legislation... :-) )

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 9:43 AM Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> Hi,
> I have been following this proposal with interest. I often have tried to
> tag hazards, and not found a good ways of doing it.
> We are now compiling a long list of hazards, including golf players
> crossing the road, but I see some basic aspects which are not being
> addressed (unless I missed something):
>
> I would like to see signposted hazards completely separately tagged from
> hazards that the mapper perceives in a place, but which are not signed.
>
> Signed hazards should be mapped.
>
>- on nodes, if the extension of the hazard is point-like (example:
>dangerous railway crossing)
>- on ways, if the hazard exists along a highway (example: animals
>crossing zones)
>- (possibly) on areas, if the hazard is present in an area (example:
>landslides)
>
> In the case of signed hazards, I see two alternative ways of tagging the
> signing:
>
>- (only for nodes and ways highway segments) by adding source:xxx=sign
>like we do with speed limits
>- by mapping the relative signs as nodes
>
> Insertion of signposted hazards do not require any assessment of the
> presence of the hazard by the mapper.
>
> Signposted hazards are most often signalling dangers for vehicle drivers.
> Let's take the sign for hazard=cyclists (crossing), which warns clearly the
> vehicle drivers on the carriageway, that there could be cyclists crossing.
> There is normally no such warning on the crossing cyclists' path.
> There are exceptions of hazard warnings for both parties like a "cyclists
> sharing the road" sign, but that's the only one that comes to mind.
>
> Another aspect that should be defined: Are writings or pictograms on the
> road surface equivalent to vertical traffic signs?
>
>
> A completely different story are unsigned hazards with no signs on the
> ground, i.e. situations perceived as a hazard by the mapper.
> These are the tricky ones. I map cycling infrastructure, hence my examples
> come from that perspective.
> Examples:
>
>- foot-cycle crosswalks where there is a sign-posted speed limit of
>30km/h, but where 90% of the cars pass with speeds far exceeding that value
>and making the place really dangerous
>- a two-way cycle path that is parallel to a main road and crosses  a
>side road with a foot.bicycle crosswalk - car drivers entering the side
>road regularly overlook cyclists which ride in the same direction as they
>drive (to my knowledge the major cause of cyclists being killed in many
>countries. These in most cases in my part of the world have no danger
>signs.
>- And now consider the same situation with a row of trees between the
>cycle path and the main carriage way.
>- In my part of the world authorities put all kinds of bollards,
>arches, chicanes on cycleways (supposedly for the safety of cyclists, but
>in reality to keep car drivers from parking there). Many of these are grey
>metal objects that become invisible at night even if you have a good cycle
>light, as they have no reflective markers on them.
>
> The problem here is that the tagging will be based on my perceived version
> of ground truth. If I am a cyclist, I may be good at spotting hazards for
> cyclists. If I am a horse rider I will be good at mapping hazards for horse
> riders.
>
> Then we have also the asymmetric situations: e.g. car drivers are warned
> by a sign that there will be cyclists crossing, but the (bigger) hazard of
> cars hitting the cyclists on the same crossing is not signposted for
> cyclists.
>
> Volker
>
>
> On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 17:05, ael via Tagging 
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 09:48:27PM +, Paul Allen wrote:
>> > On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 19:56, Martin Koppenhoefer <
>> dieterdre...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > Up until around ten years ago, a minor road went past the end of the
>> > runway at what passes for an airport.  The planes could be so low on
>> > approach to the runway that there were traffic signals to prevent
>> > vehicles crossing the path of an aircraft.  There were also signs
>> > warning of low-flying aircraft, which I referred to as "Give way
>> > to aircraft."
>>
>> Also at much larger airports. Brize Norton
>> 

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 5. Dec 2020, at 17:05, ael via Tagging  wrote:
> 
> Also at much larger airports. Brize Norton
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Brize_Norton), for example.


you guys are finding real world examples for every weird situation that nobody 
expected to even exist. Traffic lights for rock fall somewhere?

Cheers Martin  
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

[Volker Schmidt]

Hi,
I have been following this proposal with interest. I often have tried to
tag hazards, and not found a good ways of doing it.
We are now compiling a long list of hazards, including golf players
crossing the road, but I see some basic aspects which are not being
addressed (unless I missed something):

I would like to see signposted hazards completely separately tagged from
hazards that the mapper perceives in a place, but which are not signed.

Signed hazards should be mapped.

   - on nodes, if the extension of the hazard is point-like (example:
   dangerous railway crossing)
   - on ways, if the hazard exists along a highway (example: animals
   crossing zones)
   - (possibly) on areas, if the hazard is present in an area (example:
   landslides)

In the case of signed hazards, I see two alternative ways of tagging the
signing:

   - (only for nodes and ways highway segments) by adding source:xxx=sign
   like we do with speed limits
   - by mapping the relative signs as nodes

Insertion of signposted hazards do not require any assessment of the
presence of the hazard by the mapper.

Signposted hazards are most often signalling dangers for vehicle drivers.
Let's take the sign for hazard=cyclists (crossing), which warns clearly the
vehicle drivers on the carriageway, that there could be cyclists crossing.
There is normally no such warning on the crossing cyclists' path.
There are exceptions of hazard warnings for both parties like a "cyclists
sharing the road" sign, but that's the only one that comes to mind.

Another aspect that should be defined: Are writings or pictograms on the
road surface equivalent to vertical traffic signs?


A completely different story are unsigned hazards with no signs on the
ground, i.e. situations perceived as a hazard by the mapper.
These are the tricky ones. I map cycling infrastructure, hence my examples
come from that perspective.
Examples:

   - foot-cycle crosswalks where there is a sign-posted speed limit of
   30km/h, but where 90% of the cars pass with speeds far exceeding that value
   and making the place really dangerous
   - a two-way cycle path that is parallel to a main road and crosses  a
   side road with a foot.bicycle crosswalk - car drivers entering the side
   road regularly overlook cyclists which ride in the same direction as they
   drive (to my knowledge the major cause of cyclists being killed in many
   countries. These in most cases in my part of the world have no danger
   signs.
   - And now consider the same situation with a row of trees between the
   cycle path and the main carriage way.
   - In my part of the world authorities put all kinds of bollards, arches,
   chicanes on cycleways (supposedly for the safety of cyclists, but in
   reality to keep car drivers from parking there). Many of these are grey
   metal objects that become invisible at night even if you have a good cycle
   light, as they have no reflective markers on them.

The problem here is that the tagging will be based on my perceived version
of ground truth. If I am a cyclist, I may be good at spotting hazards for
cyclists. If I am a horse rider I will be good at mapping hazards for horse
riders.

Then we have also the asymmetric situations: e.g. car drivers are warned by
a sign that there will be cyclists crossing, but the (bigger) hazard of
cars hitting the cyclists on the same crossing is not signposted for
cyclists.

Volker


On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 17:05, ael via Tagging 
wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 09:48:27PM +, Paul Allen wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 19:56, Martin Koppenhoefer  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > Up until around ten years ago, a minor road went past the end of the
> > runway at what passes for an airport.  The planes could be so low on
> > approach to the runway that there were traffic signals to prevent
> > vehicles crossing the path of an aircraft.  There were also signs
> > warning of low-flying aircraft, which I referred to as "Give way
> > to aircraft."
>
> Also at much larger airports. Brize Norton
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Brize_Norton), for example.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/190194553 for one of the traffic
> lights.
>
> ael
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

[ael via Tagging]

On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 09:48:27PM +, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 19:56, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
> 
> Up until around ten years ago, a minor road went past the end of the
> runway at what passes for an airport.  The planes could be so low on
> approach to the runway that there were traffic signals to prevent
> vehicles crossing the path of an aircraft.  There were also signs
> warning of low-flying aircraft, which I referred to as "Give way
> to aircraft."

Also at much larger airports. Brize Norton
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Brize_Norton), for example.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/190194553 for one of the traffic
lights.

ael


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

[Michael Patrick]

I pretty much learned to drive in the State of Montana, and they had a
superbly simple method of road hazard warning. For every fatal accident,
they would plant a post, and on the post would be one or more crosses
corresponeding to the fatalities in that accident. ( Keep in mind for many
years, Montana had an unlimited speed limit, and even aft the nationall 55
limit, you were issued a $5 'fuel consumption violation' )

So, when you were cruising up to curve in the road, especially at night
when your headlights would reflect off them, it gave a nicely quantitative
measure of how fast one should take that stretch of road. :-)

https://bozemanmagazine.com/articles/2019/12/01/103395-sobering-reminder-montanas-fatality-marker
and https://bit.ly/37FUnzZ

Michael Patrick



Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Inclined elevators

[Francesco Ansanelli]

Hello,

I want to give you an example of how I described this feature (inclined
elevator) in my town..

First of all a master relation:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10433645

Then 2 relations:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10433643
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10433644

Please note that bicycle=yes at relation level.
Finally the way itself:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/358333577

In my opinion it's important to have a relation for this kind of features
(specially for access tags).

Please let me know what you think.

Francesco

Il sab 5 dic 2020, 01:44 Joseph Eisenberg  ha
scritto:

> I agree that the indoor or semi-indoor inclined elevators, which are fully
> enclosed and look completely similar to a vertical elevator, should be
> tagged as highway=elevator.
>
> Once they are outdoors and there are visible tracks it gets ambiguous.
>
> Since the Montmarte "funicular" is tagged as railway=funicular even though
> the pairs cars are now no longer connected to one cable, I think we can
> edit the Tag:railway=funicular page to mention that the tag is also used
> for similar cable-driven inclined railways which are not technically
> funiculars, but looks the same to the non-expert.
>
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 3:30 PM Guillaume Chauvat 
> wrote:
>
>> Sorry for spamming.
>>
>> I also think it's fine if the Montmarte funicular is tagged as a
>> funicular. But I'm asking because of things that are clearly elevators,
>> like this one:
>> https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-tekniska-hgskolan-metro-station-stermalm-district-stockholm-sweden-41948022.html
>> . It goes on a path parallel to the escalators, not vertically (I have been
>> inside). To me it looks very wrong to call this a funicular. But maybe
>> others disagree...
>>
>> Guillaume
>>
>> On 2020-12-05 00:07, Clay Smalley wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020, 5:00 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The wiki page text says that a railway=funicular is "A funicular, also
>>> known as an inclined plane or cliff railway, is a cable railway in which a
>>> cable attached to a pair of tram-like vehicles on rails moves them up and
>>> down a steep slope, the ascending and descending vehicles counterbalancing
>>> each other.”
>>>
>>> However, the description in the infobox (which is much more commonly
>>> seen in places like taginfo and iD) is only “Cable driven inclined railway”
>>> - and this could include many types of "inclined elevators” which mostly
>>> run on rails too. So mappers might be using railway=funicular for inclined
>>> elevators already.
>>>
>>
>> Indeed they are. For example, here's the Montmartre Funicular in Paris,
>> which was historically a true funicular but is now technically a pair of
>> inclined elevators: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/29403578
>>
>> The distinction between a funicular and an inclined elevator is to me a
>> technical one. Many inclined elevators, like the previous example, are
>> named as funiculars, and passengers may not even notice that they are on
>> one or the other - for all they know, they're just on a vehicle going up
>> and down steeply sloped rails.
>>
>> I'm in favor of tagging inclined elevators as funiculars whenever they
>> may resemble one. Perhaps an additional tag like
>> railway:funicular=inclined_elevator could be invented for those interested
>> in the technical details on how the steep-slope-railway-thing works.
>>
>> -Clay
>>
>>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing 
>> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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 mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging