Martin, The example you gave for tunnels and bridges are the same for roads as well. If you have a bridge or tunnel with 2 roads (one for each one-way) and a train line(s) and footpath each will be a tagged with a separate bridge. So in that regard rail is actually are consistent with the road network.
Also you say you want it better for simple mapping and other can do more detailed mapping if they want to. I see no part of your proposal to add additional tracks like is now yet you imply in the posts here that it is. If you do think this then it doesn't not help the crossing example you gave as we will have the same problem again. Do you propose that we change *all* the currently mapped multi track rails to conform to your new standard? e.g. here there are hundreds of tracks/railways which IMHO accurately reflects what is on the ground. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.47119&lon=-0.14847&zoom=15&layers=M However what I do agree with you is that the rail guidelines should be more detailed but I would go the other way with saying that all tracks should be mapped not less for complete mapping. That is a common way of doing things and going forward especially as we get more detailed mapping (it's slowly coming to the US ;)) And I also agree that crossing multiple tracks are probably not the best representation but a proposal for having them as relations would be best where multiple lines are. -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Feature-Proposal-RFC-More-Consistency-in-Railway-Tagging-tp5756879p5756958.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
