Hello everyone, I only noticed this discussion now. Is it too late to give my input?

I’d like to start by apologizing to Janete for not answering their comment on my changeset. I don’t think these send a notification.

I changed this elevator and many others because of their functionality:

1. This elevator is more akin to a standard public elevator which serves small scale urban traversal than to a funicular which tends to be medium scale public transport. It is small, automatic, user controlled and doesn’t follow a schedule.

2. In terms of functionality, it being an inclined elevator is also more beneficial. Inclined elevators work as is by most navigation engines I tested while funiculars don’t work even when routes are created.
This proves to be a large detriment to a public elevator which can expected to be used casually for urban movement than it would be for public transport where it is expected to require some forethought.

3. As to the lack of rendering, that is a simple deficiency in Carto which can easily be corrected as opposed to changing the whole background functionality of the elevator.
OsmAnd for example renders inclined elevators.

In conclusion, besides being the technically correct designation, calling this transport an inclined elevator is both more correct in a practical sense and offers better functionality for navigation.
This elevator has more in common with the public elevators at the public park a little to the northwest than to the elevators at Montmartre which function more like large scale public transport and were kept as funiculars.
