Proposed features/Magnetic levitation train

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Magnetic levitation train
Status: Rejected (inactive)
Proposed by: erkinalp
Tagging: railway=maglev
Applies to: way
Definition: Railway with maglev propulsion
Rendered as: Like railway, with blue and red stripes instead of grey and white stripes.
Drafted on: 2017-09-17
RFC start: 2017-09-17
Vote start: 2017-10-06

Proposal

Maglev trains are currently in experimental stage. They are a potential means of passenger transport and may appear more widely.

Rationale

Maglev and adhesion trains have incompatible rails, hence need different tagging.

Current Tagging

Taking a quick look at a few examples of existing (or disused or currently under construction) maglev lines on osm, here's what they are tagged at the moment:

Line Status Tagging OSM Example
Shanghai Maglev Train operational railway=monorail
(partially additionally monorail=maglev)
way 230069187 (iD, JOSM, Potlatch2, history, XML)
way 230069188 (iD, JOSM, Potlatch2, history, XML)
Incheon Airport Maglev operational railway=monorail + monorail=maglev way 227558575 (iD, JOSM, Potlatch2, history, XML)
Linimo operational railway=light_rail way 45169095 (iD, JOSM, Potlatch2, history, XML)
Emsland test facility disused railway=disused + monorail=maglev way 35745955 (iD, JOSM, Potlatch2, history, XML)
Chūō Shinkansen under construction railway=rail + note=maglev way 519177029 (iD, JOSM, Potlatch2, history, XML)

(feel free to further extend this list of examples) (Tyr)

This proposal will bring these different taggings into a standardised single way of tagging, if we do not run into XKCD 927.

Tagging

railway=maglev

Applies to

Same types of features railway=rail apply.

Possible rendering

Like railway, with blue and red stripes instead of grey and white stripes (First rendering of maglev in any major online map). Blue and red are chosen as they are usually used in magnet illustrations in order to denote north and south poles of magnetic field.

Features/Pages affected

External discussions

Comments

Please comment on the discussion page.

Voting

Usual voting rules apply(at least 15 votes with majority approval and at least 8 approvals). Voting extension effective by November 18th.

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Ashtez (talk)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal, as the originator. Erkin Alp Güney (talk) 08:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I strongly disagree with "Maglev and adhesion trains have incompatible rails, hence need different tagging." First part is true, second may be true but implication is false. For example - rails with incompatible gauge and their tagging. Also, is this vote announced anywhere like a mailing list? Also, what is the point of "possible rendering" section? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, vote announced, see [1].
Railways with different gauges do not need to be rendered differently because they have gaps or large sheds at gauge changeover locations. Erkin Alp Güney (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
So why you use "have incompatible rails, hence need different tagging." argument? Also, note that separate rendering does not require using separate value for a railway key Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. With the few instances monorail is fitting nicely. If there are really more in the future this topic can/should be revisited. --Zuse
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. User 5359 (talk)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. User Oberaffe
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. It's still too rare and there is really no need for special tagging. I.e. what we gain, compared to using monorail=maglev? OTOH, some consensus would be useful. Rmikke (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I agree it is totally rare, and frankly, I don't expect it to change in the middle future (it took 30 years from the working experimental train in Emsland to the first deployment in a real usecase, and lots of projects failed before, and not many are drafted for the future). I would rather appreciate an additional key than a new railway value, because changing the existing railway tags on these railways will effectively hide them from most maps. Keep it simple, add additional properties rather than changing existing mapping, if it is possible (IMHO, here it is). --Dieterdreist (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I also wouldn't suggest monorail=maglev because some maglev trains might be different (tube, 2 and more rails, etc.). Maybe a simple maglev=yes/only. --Dieterdreist (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Result

Rejected, both due to direct results (50% voted no) and people not voting (8 votes in over three months despite multiple extensions) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)