Proposal talk:Incline railway

I disagree with this proposal. I thing that rack and funicular should be specific tag for "normal" railway types. The reason is, that there are railways, which are rack (or cable) driven only in part of their route. And there could be also rack tramway, funicular subway etc. So I propose following tagging scheme:

railway=rail | light_rail | tram | subway ...

rack = no (default) | yes | {more specific type} (e.g. Riggenbach, Abt ...)

funicular ( or cable? ) = no | yes

-Vrabcak 09:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

funicular is by definition not a "normal" railway type, due to the passing method used. I have my doubts that there are railways which are cable-driven for only part of their route. --Hawke 21:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course there are - that is why I commented on the proposal. See for example Opicina Tramway which I think should be tagged as railway=tram and is "funicular-style" driven in part of its route. The same system uses also several logging and industrial railways (today I think mostly historic or abandoned) to push cars over steep slopes. I can agree on your modified proposal, which can solve this.

One more question - is there any reason to use railway:incline:traction= tag? Why not use raiway:traction= tag for all types of railway including incline, possibly with default value railway:traction=adhesion for rails,light_rails,subways and trams? -Vrabcak 06:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I just forgot to change the tag name in one spot. It should have been railway:traction. --Hawke 14:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if incline is the right name. If I translate from German WikiPedia:de:Standseilbahn I get "cable car". Why not use railway=cable_car (that differs from aerialway=cable_car)? --Andy 17:30, 30 March 2008 (BST)