Proposed features/Magnetic levitation train
|Magnetic levitation train|
|Definition:||Railway with maglev propulsion|
|Rendered as:||Like railway, with blue and red stripes instead of grey and white stripes.|
Maglev trains are currently in experimental stage. They are a potential means of passenger transport and may appear more widely.
Maglev and adhesion trains have incompatible rails, hence need different 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:
|Shanghai Maglev Train||operational|| railway=monorail
(partially additionally monorail=maglev)
|Incheon Airport Maglev||operational||railway=monorail + monorail=maglev|
|Emsland test facility||disused||railway=disused + monorail=maglev|
|Chūō Shinkansen||under construction||railway=rail + note=maglev|
(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.
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.
Please comment on the discussion page.
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. Ashtez (talk)
- I approve this proposal, as the originator. Erkin Alp Güney (talk) 08:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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 .
- 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)
- 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. User 5359 (talk)
- I approve this proposal. User Oberaffe
- 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 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)