"3rd rail" and "4th rail" are universally recognized terms. I am electrification engineer, and I have worked with other electrification engineers from various countries. Let's not confuse matters. :-)
best regards, Garry On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 12:30, Peter Neale via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> 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. > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
