Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alex Mauer schrieb: > Gervase Markham wrote: >> What features shares a way with a railway at all, traction or no traction? > > highways, for one. There are railways which travel along streets in > many places. That would be another way on the same nodes, in my book. - -- Dirk-Lüder "Deelkar" Kreie Bremen - 53.0952°N 8.8652°E -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFH8UPBFUbODdpRVDwRAu7vAJ9+fz+mM6y5srtGzix4D30+l4tk4QCgxcq6 fHBJ4T4QArJdFdtRZFMmlqE= =mcUY -END PGP SIGNATURE- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008, Cartinus wrote: > Almost nobody would accept it if we suddenly had to use railway:name=, > highway:name=, etc. on all ways just because there are some places where > people want to tag the street and the the tramway on the same way object. > > What you'd need is a solution that works for all tags, not a few tags with > namespace parts and all the rest without. Maybe the editors just need a new way of presenting the namespacing. This is basically no more than a tree architecture and makes a lot of sense to me. e.g. (using semi-fictional tags): . |-- highway | |-- type = residential | |-- name = Foo Street | `-- ref = B1234 |-- cycleway | `-- ref = 5 `-- railway |-- type = tram `-- ref = 78 I think that namespacing only raises the barrier to entry if it is inconsistent and isn't presented by the editors in a good way. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Huh? object oriented? It's like that in order to prevent potential > conflicts, not anything to do with object orientation. Some people consider namespaces as part of object orientation. Anyway, I dont like them. Sven -- "I'm a bastard, and proud of it" (Linus Torvalds, Wednesday Sep 6, 2000) /me is [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
On Saturday 29 March 2008 19:20:24 Alex Mauer wrote: > Andy Allan wrote: > > I see you've changed it from railway:incline:traction= to > > railway:traction= - but I still don't understand the need for the > > railway: prefix. Am I missing something obvious? What's wrong with > > just traction= ? > > I think it is possible, even likely, that we might want to apply it to > something other than railway, which can share a way with a railway. The > simple/plain traction= would preclude this. There is nothing really special about the traction tag that makes it more likely that this will happen with it than with other tags. Take the name tag for example. If the railway shares a way object with something else, then does the name tag apply to the railway, to the other thing, to both? What if each of them has a different name? Almost nobody would accept it if we suddenly had to use railway:name=, highway:name=, etc. on all ways just because there are some places where people want to tag the street and the the tramway on the same way object. What you'd need is a solution that works for all tags, not a few tags with namespace parts and all the rest without. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
Gervase Markham wrote: > Alex Mauer wrote: >> I think it is possible, even likely, that we might want to apply it to >> something other than railway, which can share a way with a railway. The >> simple/plain traction= would preclude this. > > Can you give an example of such a thing? > > What features shares a way with a railway at all, traction or no traction? highways, for one. There are railways which travel along streets in many places. -Alex Mauer "hawke" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
Alex Mauer wrote: > I think it is possible, even likely, that we might want to apply it to > something other than railway, which can share a way with a railway. The > simple/plain traction= would preclude this. Can you give an example of such a thing? What features shares a way with a railway at all, traction or no traction? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andy Allan wrote: > > > I see you've changed it from railway:incline:traction= to > > railway:traction= - but I still don't understand the need for the > > railway: prefix. Am I missing something obvious? What's wrong with > > just traction= ? > > I think it is possible, even likely, that we might want to apply it to > something other than railway, Fair enough > which can share a way with a railway. Very, very unlikely. > The simple/plain traction= would preclude this. It could be modelled with two ways, if this was the case. Even sharing nodes (if it needs to be impossible to edit!). Or relations. But you seem to be making up extremely unlikely hypotheticals in order to back up your desire to use namespaces where they are completely unnecessary (c.f. piste:lift:capacity). I can't even think of a situation where the capacity= tag is ambiguous, and it's being used for a number of capacity-related purposes, never mind this traction= tag which so far only even has one purpose. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
Andy Allan wrote: > I see you've changed it from railway:incline:traction= to > railway:traction= - but I still don't understand the need for the > railway: prefix. Am I missing something obvious? What's wrong with > just traction= ? I think it is possible, even likely, that we might want to apply it to something other than railway, which can share a way with a railway. The simple/plain traction= would preclude this. -Alex Mauer "hawke" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andy Allan wrote: > > Gah. All the namespacing appears to be there to raise the barrier to > > entry, rather than solving any real problem. Once again, I will say > > that it is unnecessarily complicated. If I find a traction=something I > > will know that you are talking about railway traction because it is on > > a railway=something object. > > Clearly, there's no way that a traction key could ever be applied to > something that shares a way with a railway. That's not a real problem, > just something imaginary. I see you've changed it from railway:incline:traction= to railway:traction= - but I still don't understand the need for the railway: prefix. Am I missing something obvious? What's wrong with just traction= ? Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
Andy Allan wrote: > Gah. All the namespacing appears to be there to raise the barrier to > entry, rather than solving any real problem. Once again, I will say > that it is unnecessarily complicated. If I find a traction=something I > will know that you are talking about railway traction because it is on > a railway=something object. Clearly, there's no way that a traction key could ever be applied to something that shares a way with a railway. That's not a real problem, just something imaginary. -Alex Mauer "hawke" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
Andy Allan schrieb: > On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Sven Geggus wrote: >> > >> > To be serious, I don't like this pseudo object-oriented >> > railway:incline:traction= stuff at all. >> >> Huh? object oriented? It's like that in order to prevent potential >> conflicts, not anything to do with object orientation. >> > Gah. All the namespacing appears to be there to raise the barrier to > entry, rather than solving any real problem. Once again, I will say > that it is unnecessarily complicated. If I find a traction=something I > will know that you are talking about railway traction because it is on > a railway=something object. In the same way, I will know that > capacity=100 means that it's a chairlift capacity because it's on a > chairlift, not a car park, and any "piste:thing:capacity" is a waste > of time. You are simply making the tagging extremely complicated to > remember. > > Please, please, please stop with the namespacing. We have tens of > thousands of volunteers who won't understand what it means, and it > doesn't actually solve any real problems. > FULL ACK!!! Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
> Please, please, please stop with the namespacing. We have tens of > thousands of volunteers who won't understand what it means, and it > doesn't actually solve any real problems. > +1 Wabba ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sven Geggus wrote: > > > > To be serious, I don't like this pseudo object-oriented > > railway:incline:traction= stuff at all. > > Huh? object oriented? It's like that in order to prevent potential > conflicts, not anything to do with object orientation. Gah. All the namespacing appears to be there to raise the barrier to entry, rather than solving any real problem. Once again, I will say that it is unnecessarily complicated. If I find a traction=something I will know that you are talking about railway traction because it is on a railway=something object. In the same way, I will know that capacity=100 means that it's a chairlift capacity because it's on a chairlift, not a car park, and any "piste:thing:capacity" is a waste of time. You are simply making the tagging extremely complicated to remember. Please, please, please stop with the namespacing. We have tens of thousands of volunteers who won't understand what it means, and it doesn't actually solve any real problems. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
Sven Geggus wrote: > > To be serious, I don't like this pseudo object-oriented > railway:incline:traction= stuff at all. Huh? object oriented? It's like that in order to prevent potential conflicts, not anything to do with object orientation. > As far as rendering is concerned, your proposol states "No rendering changes > required." This ist not true, as incline railways are currently _not_ > rendered at all. Good point. I've updated the proposal. (though of course, rendering incline railways wouldn't be required as such, but that's just semantics) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've updated my proposal at > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Incline_railway > to reflect this. To be serious, I don't like this pseudo object-oriented railway:incline:traction= stuff at all. So I would instead sugest to go for "traction=" As far as rendering is concerned, your proposol states "No rendering changes required." This ist not true, as incline railways are currently _not_ rendered at all. Regards Sven -- /* * Wirzenius wrote this portably, Torvalds fucked it up :-) */(taken from /usr/src/linux/lib/vsprintf.c) /me is [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
Only small correction. There are railways which are cable driven for only a section. See for example Opicina Tramway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opicina_Tramway. The same system use also several logging and industrial railways (today I think mostly historic or abandoned) to push cars over steep slopes. With your modified proposal we can solve this with tagging cable sections with traction=cable so this is no longer issue. =TT= > > However, as far as I am aware, the following do not exist: > * railways which are both cable- and rack-driven in the same section > * railways which are cable-driven for only a section > * funiculars connected to a main rail system > > I've updated my proposal at > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Incline_railway > to reflect this. > > -Alex Mauer "hawke" > > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
Sven Geggus wrote: > All I said is that there > is no such beast as a generic incline railroad. But there is such a thing as a railroad which is known to be incline, but for which the drive system is unknown. As I understand it, there are standard railways which have rack-driven sections, so some way to indicate that independent of the railway value is definitely needed in any case. And there are definitely entirely cable-driven rail systems (e.g. the San Francisco cable car system). This could be handled with something like railway=tram, cable=yes, or with something like railway=tram, traction=cable. And there are other incline railways, not part of the standard rail system, which may be: * unknown drive type * funicular * other cable-driven systems * rack drive * other drive type However, as far as I am aware, the following do not exist: * railways which are both cable- and rack-driven in the same section * railways which are cable-driven for only a section * funiculars connected to a main rail system I've updated my proposal at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Incline_railway to reflect this. -Alex Mauer "hawke" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
"Robert (Jamie) Munro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Surely you mean Rack and pinion? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rack_and_pinion > > Someone else said "rag=yes" for a tag This could have been me as well. I'm not that familiar with these strange technical term about railways. I know these as called Zahnradbahn and Standseilbahn in german and I'm quite shure that a lot of germans don't even know the german technical terms :) Sorry for confusing them. Sven -- /* * Wirzenius wrote this portably, Torvalds fucked it up :-) */(taken from /usr/src/linux/lib/vsprintf.c) /me is [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Sven Geggus wrote: | rag-and-pinion Surely you mean Rack and pinion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rack_and_pinion Someone else said "rag=yes" for a tag, and I had no idea what they were on about until now. :-) Robert (Jamie) Munro -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFH64duz+aYVHdncI0RAkn4AKDkzlE/DcHwwnEMDqyLwu9FZFYXegCghnuV y4ly1D2bpFKnnoAN12Wj/dU= =ESbI -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
Tomáš Tichý <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Both this proposals have the same flaw I pointed out before - you > cannot tag other types of railway systems as incline. So you cannot > have funicular subway or rag light_rail, which of course exists in > reality. subsurface funicular railways are by not subways. All I said is that there is no such beast as a generic incline railroad. At least rag-and-pinion systems are often also found on steep sections of non incline railroads. Sven -- "The American news-media is no longer a news source; it is a cheerleading squad." (unknown source) /me is [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
On Mar 27, 2008, at 00:56, Alex L. Mauer wrote: > Sven Geggus wrote: >> 1.) adding railway=funicular and rag=yes for non funicular incline >> railways >> >> 2.) adding railway=incline and an additional tags for types of >> incline >> railways (funicular,rag, ...) > > I think it is important to be able to mark a railway as an incline > railway of some sort, without having to specify what drive mechanism > it > uses. If that can fit into the first suggestion, I'm all for it. incline=yes ? Cheers Robert ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
Both this proposals have the same flaw I pointed out before - you
cannot tag other types of railway systems as incline. So you cannot
have funicular subway or rag light_rail, which of course exists in
reality.
So please include my proposal to voting:
railway=rail | light_rail | tram | subway ...
rack = no (default) | yes | {more specific type} (e.g. Riggenbach, Abt ...)
funicular ( or cable? ) = no | yes | {more specific type} (e.g.
cable_car ...)
Additional tags could be discussed further but I strongly diagree to
mix traction type or steep with "railway" tag, which indicates rail
system.
=TT=
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Sven Geggus
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cartinus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > But you don't have to suggest this now. ;) Proposals for both already
> existed
> > in the wiki before Hawke wrote the railway=incline proposal.
>
> So let us break down the different suggestions and go on vor vote
> now?
>
> As far as I can tell, there are two suggestions:
>
> 1.) adding railway=funicular and rag=yes for non funicular incline
> railways
>
> 2.) adding railway=incline and an additional tags for types of incline
> railways (funicular,rag, ...)
>
> others?
>
> Sven
>
> --
> This golden age of communication Means everyone talks at the same time
> (Lyrics of "New Model Army" song "225")
>
>
> /me is [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web
>
> ___
>
>
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
Sven Geggus wrote: > Cartinus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> But you don't have to suggest this now. ;) Proposals for both already >> existed >> in the wiki before Hawke wrote the railway=incline proposal. > > So let us break down the different suggestions and go on vor vote > now? > > As far as I can tell, there are two suggestions: > > 1.) adding railway=funicular and rag=yes for non funicular incline > railways > > 2.) adding railway=incline and an additional tags for types of incline > railways (funicular,rag, ...) I think it is important to be able to mark a railway as an incline railway of some sort, without having to specify what drive mechanism it uses. If that can fit into the first suggestion, I'm all for it. -Alex Mauer "hawke" signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
Cartinus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But you don't have to suggest this now. ;) Proposals for both already existed > in the wiki before Hawke wrote the railway=incline proposal. So let us break down the different suggestions and go on vor vote now? As far as I can tell, there are two suggestions: 1.) adding railway=funicular and rag=yes for non funicular incline railways 2.) adding railway=incline and an additional tags for types of incline railways (funicular,rag, ...) others? Sven -- This golden age of communication Means everyone talks at the same time (Lyrics of "New Model Army" song "225") /me is [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If it's impossible to differentiate, then how do you know how to tag it? it is impossible to differentiate by means of railway cars, but not by means of the rails themselves. There are gear racks on some parts of the railway line and tehre are no gear racks on others. Sven -- Osama bin Laden might wish to destroy America, but America is too big for him; he cannot do it. Bush may really do it. (Richard M. Stallman) /me is [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
On Wednesday 26 March 2008 00:16:41 Sven Geggus wrote: > Thus I would suggest the new tag railway=funicular and an additional tag > like rack=yes +1 But you don't have to suggest this now. ;) Proposals for both already existed in the wiki before Hawke wrote the railway=incline proposal. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Funicular_railway http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Rack_railway -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sven Geggus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Thus I would suggest the new tag railway=funicular and an additional tag like >rack=yes +1 I think trying to call funiculars "incline railways" and then combining this idea with rack railways smells of over-generalisation. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
On Mar 26, 2008, at 00:24, Alex Mauer wrote: > Sven Geggus wrote: >> Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> I've written up a proposal here: >>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Incline_railway >> >> I don't like this! It is often impossible to differeciate between >> incline railways and ordinary railways, esecially in countries like >> Switzerland. >> > > If it's impossible to differentiate, then how do you know how to tag > it? So far, different railway tags have described different networks. A railway=rail doesn't suddenly change into a a railway=subway. But a part of a railway might go over a bridge (bridge=yes) or have a rack (rack=yes for that segment). Cheers Robert ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
Sven Geggus wrote: > Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I've written up a proposal here: >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Incline_railway > > I don't like this! It is often impossible to differeciate between > incline railways and ordinary railways, esecially in countries like > Switzerland. > If it's impossible to differentiate, then how do you know how to tag it? -Alex Mauer "hawke" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've written up a proposal here: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Incline_railway I don't like this! It is often impossible to differeciate between incline railways and ordinary railways, esecially in countries like Switzerland. There are quite a lot of ordinary Railways (e.g. Täsch - Zermatt) which are using rack-and-pinion at some places while using an ordinary railroad drive most of the time. This said, I would not differeciate between railway=rail/narrow_gauge and incline in particular. Instead using something like rack=yes in addition! However, as far as funiculars are concerned these are totaly different beasts without any connection to ordinary railways. Thus I would suggest the new tag railway=funicular and an additional tag like rack=yes Regards Sven -- "Every time you use Google, you're using a Linux machine" (Chris DiBona, a programs manager for Google) /me is [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [tagging] RFC: railway=incline
Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote: > I clearly got it wrong, apologies for that. So the question is whether to > group them under a single definition or to split between funicular an > rack/cog. I'd be all for splitting them under a separate key (railway:incline:type=funicular/cable/rack? I know I'll lose that particular key due to the namespace style, but hopefully people can agree with the general concept of splitting the values like that) I've written up a proposal here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Incline_railway This should allow the easy tagging of any sort of incline railway as well as keeping the existing TIGER data valid. It also uses the method I mention above to allow more precision if desired. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
