Hi, a follow up to this. Specifically, in the UK we have a significant network of 4th rail electrification in London... around 250 route miles. At the moment this is tagged as electrified=rail, so there is no way of differentiating it from 3rd rail (which we also have a lot of, in the same area). The system is fundamentally different from 3rd rail, which uses the running rails asthe return path rather than a dedicated return rail. As far as I can establish, the only use of this system outside the UK is in Milan, but there may be others we're not aware of? We would therefore like to propose the use of electrified=4th_rail for these systems. We would obviously like to get views and build consensus before embarking on any tagging changes.

Dear Garry, Thank you for your emails. Great to hear that more and more countries are benefiting from the ORM project. I agree with the plan for a ‘4th_rail’ tag and agree with Maarten that we should change the ‘rail’ tag to ‘3rd_rail’. If I remember correctly, in the past it was already possible to view the electrification map beta on a website from Michael (CC). Moreover, you can download the JOSM editor and try out the electrification style there; this allows you to easily add data while seeing the result at the same time. If you need any help with setting that up, feel free to send me an email. Best regards, Jeroen Wegdam > Op 6 jun. 2020 om 08:35 heeft Maarten Deen <mdeen(a)xs4all.nl&gt; het volgende geschreven: > > On 2020-06-05 17:34, garry.keenor(a)gmail.com wrote: >> Hi, a follow up to this. >> Specifically, in the UK we have a significant network of 4th rail >> electrification in London... around 250 route miles. At the moment >> this is tagged as electrified=rail, so there is no way of >> differentiating it from 3rd rail (which we also have a lot of, in the >> same area). The system is fundamentally different from 3rd rail, which >> uses the running rails asthe return path rather than a dedicated >> return rail. >> As far as I can establish, the only use of this system outside the UK >> is in Milan, but there may be others we're not aware of? >> We would therefore like to propose the use of electrified=4th_rail for >> these systems. We would obviously like to get views and build >> consensus before embarking on any tagging changes. > > I think that is a good addition. And tag 3rd rail systems as electrified=3rd_rail as well. > There is also electrified:rail that specifies the type of contact (top, bottom, side). Obvioudly you will use electrified:4th_rail=top/bottom/side for 4th rail systems. > > Regards, > Maarten

Jeroen, Maarten, Thank you for your support to the idea. We had discussed electrified=3rd_rail, and the only thing putting us off was the potential to upset existing taggers and 3rd rail lines around the world who would then have a legacy tag. But if that can be overcome, then yes it would be a very clean approach. As the next step, should I aedit the tage scheme wiki? I'd suggest the following definitions: electrified=3rd_rail: 3rd contact rail / Used for tracks electrified by a 3rd rail system, with one additional rail on insulators, using shoe pickup by the train, and traction current return via the running rail(s) electrified=4th_rail: 4th contact rail / Used for tracks electrified by a 4th rail system, with two additional rails on insulators and two shoe pickup by the train, and traction current returning via one of the insulated rails

Thanks Maarten - I've done that at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging. Would appreciate someone checking it for me.

Hi Garry, Am 09/06/2020 um 13.53 schrieb garry.keenor(a)gmail.com: Thank you for starting a proposal. electrified=* has been in use since mid 2009 and is one of the basic tags for railway infrastructure. It is included in the core presets of the major editors (not just the third-party tagging presets OpenRailwayMap maintains for JOSM). Just changing the wiki will unlikely convince the developers of the major editors to update their presets. Getting a consensus using the established proposal process is the right way to do. Best regards Michael

Hi all, so far I see we currently have the following possible values for electrified: electrified=contact_line electrified=rail: any type of power rail electrified=yes: type not specified electrified=no If I right understand you like to have a more detailed specification for additional power rails. If we add "4th_rail" how do we understand "electrified=rail"? Does it imply a 3rd rail only or all types of rail? Additional to that I like to keep the top/bottom/side specifications for all rail power types. Regards, Eckhard

Hi Garry, did you check whether the current "electrified=rail" routes are 3rd rail routes only? From my perspective I would like to deprecate the "electrified=rail" tag and introduce a 3rd_rail tag even to avoid confusions. A tag should be clear understandable. That the "rail" tag will mean 3rd rail only may cause confusions. Best, Eckhard Am Mi., 24. Juni 2020 um 14:24 Uhr schrieb <garry.keenor(a)gmail.com&gt;:

ok, makes sense, I already approved the request. Best, Eckhard (EM311) Am Mi., 24. Juni 2020 um 16:34 Uhr schrieb <garry.keenor(a)gmail.com&gt;: