Proposal:Intermodal Terminal

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Intermodal Terminals
Proposal status: Rejected (inactive)
Proposed by: sabas88
Tagging: man_made=intermodal_terminal
Applies to: node,area,relation
Definition: Terminals which allow interchange between multiple transport modes

Draft started: 2013-04-09
RFC start: 2014-01-12
Vote start: 2014-07-05
Vote end: 2014-07-19


Currently, apart for harbours and maritime tagging, logistic inland facilities are tagged most of the times as industrial areas. This previous attempt was rejected and unclear.

man_made key was chosen to reflect man_made=works. Currently it's used also industrial=intermodal_freight_terminal.

Birmingham terminal, from Wikimedia Commons


From Wikimedia Commons

An intermodal terminal is an industrial area where it's possible to move goods onto different transportation modes. Mainly the area is accessible by rail (a rail yard with multiple tracks is inside the area) and by truck (multiple gates allow the check in / check out of trucks). Inside the area there is space for storing goods (warehouses) and containers (areas used as depot where containers are stacked); other facilities include offices and other business-enabling facilities.

Further documentation:


All the area belonging to the terminal should be enclosed and tagged with man_made=intermodal_terminal (could be combined with landuse=industrial).


For further detail single warehouses rails and gated could be mapped.


Please use {{vote|yes}} or {{vote|no}} and sign with -- ~~~~, giving if you want a short motivation

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Sbiribizio (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Simone (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- LordOfMaps (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I picture would be nice! --Nounours77 (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- MikeN (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC) Added: although landuse would work for this also. MikeN (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Very usefull. Additionaly, this is very similar to other man-made structures, so it should use man_made=* not landuse=*. --Linutux (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I ambivalent this proposal. This proposal would be fine if you replaced man_made=intermodal_terminal with landuse=intermodal_terminal. man_made=* is for single structures, but you suggest to tag the whole area, which is exactly what the landuse=* key is intended for. landuse=intermodal_terminal won't interfere with landuse=industrial (or landuse=railway etc.), because a landuse=intermodal_terminal area may be inside (and thereby part of) a landuse=industrial area. --Fkv (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  1. What about the rails which are used exclusively by the terminal? With man_made you could enclose them... --Sarchittuorg (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
If a terminal consists of an area and additional linear features (rails), man_made may be more appropriate, but you'll need to put them into a collecting relation like type=collection or type=site. These relations are controversial and are therefore ignored by most applications. --Fkv (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. -- I think this should be "landuse", not "man_made" -- HillWithSmallFields (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, if it will be landuse=intermodal_terminal could be ok? You're the third to tell me this... --Sarchittuorg (talk) 09:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, presumably landuse=intermodal_terminal would be better... Start a second voting? --LordOfMaps (talk) 07:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I thought to ask you all to give comment on the change to use this vote as valid one... I'll ask on the list before accepting the new variation --Sarchittuorg (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I am against way too specific landuses like this one Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. There must be a way to tell what transportation modes can access the terminal. In addition, the possibility of using relations to have multiple stops/docks connected not just for industrial but also for passenger use (think subway/bus/bike share/... combination stops) should be considered. This could also show more detail to the user to let them know what transportation mode stops/parks/docks/whatever where. Such a relation solution would be required to have a multipolygon defining the boundaries of the terminal and have nodes or ways as stops. -- Mapify (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


As the voting feedback is conflicting, I am thinking on moving to use the old existing tag in industrial key space, to follow also this proposal