Talk:Key:embedded rails

Clarification for lanes syntax

Hi, thanks for setting up this tag. Can you clarify how you see the embedded_rails:lanes=* being used?

For example https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48890618 (this is currently tagged with one tram way sharing the road's nodes, but I will be changing it).

It is tagged lanes=5 + lanes:backward=3 + lanes:forward=2 + turn:lanes:backward=none|none|right and tram tracks are in the centre lanes, and lanes are (left to right): backward right-turn; backward straight; backward tram and straight and left-turn; forward tram and straight and left-turn; forward straight and right-turn (see imagery if unclear, iD has a preset for good-quality imagery from Esri when zoomed in).

How would this be tagged with embedded_rails:lanes? Should I do:

• embedded_rails:lanes:backward=tram|| + embedded_rails:lanes:forward=tram|
• embedded_rails:lanes=||tram|tram|
• or something else?

--Jarek Piórkowski (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the question! It's a tough one, though. In short my tentative answer would be that both are fine but that the second one (embedded_rails:lanes=||tram|tram|) is perhaps be the preferred method. Many people have expressed their discomfort with parsing prefix-tagging on the tagging mailing list and elsewhere. If I have understood correctly, the main problem is that in some cases the inheritance of prefixed properties is not clear in the current data model (which would mean that explicit tagging as in your first example would be preferable). However, the embedded_rails property is independent of the driving directions property (:backward/:forward), which would favor my answer. But as I said, I'm not an expert on the lanes tagging-scheme, and you should find a second opinion too. Please let us all know if you find a more definitive answer elsewhere! --Tolstoi21 (talk) 08:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, not being dependent on the direction makes some sense. I'll try tagging like that and let's see if/when we get some feedback from data consumers. --Jarek Piórkowski (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Should "subway" and "funicular" be removed from values, and "yes" added?

Currently the values in use are tram (97%), yes (1.5%), light_rail (1%), rail (0.25%), disused (0.2%), abandoned (0.1%), and narrow_gauge (used once). Should we add "yes" as a possible value, when it's not know what type of railway is embedded?

See [[1]]

I think "subway" and "funicular" could be removed from the table for simplicity, because I cannot imagine how these features might be embedded in a highway, and they are unused. Of course mappers will still be free to add such features in the future if they find them. --Jeisenbe (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes that sounds reasonable. Thanks for following up on the usage. --Jarek Piórkowski (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

There is certainly street track for funiculars.[2][3] Because this is a recently added tag they may not have been mapped as such yet. --Andrew (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)