This mailing list has been migrated to Mailman 3. This archive will no longer be updated. Messages after 1 February 2020 are missing. Please use the new archive instead.
Diese Mailingliste wurde auf Mailman 3 umgestellt. Dieses Archiv wird nicht mehr länger aktualisiert. Nachrichten nach dem 1. Februar 2020 fehlen. Bitte benutze das neue Archiv.

[openrailwaymap] change train protection system tagging

Michael Reichert nakaner at gmx.net
Thu Nov 27 11:23:43 MET 2014


Hi,

a few minutes ago I have read a Github issue at ORM's Github repository.
Because my comment proposes a (large) change in tagging, I publish it
here and not at Github.
https://github.com/rurseekatze/OpenRailwayMap/issues/64

The issue asks to render railway lines (the ways) in signal layer in
different colours depending on the train protection systems which are
installed there. As already implemented in maxspeed layer, ways without
information should be rendered in grey (or another unimportant colour).
Tracks without train protection should also be rendered (e.g. red).

I think that we first should change tagging of train protection systems
to be able to show railway tracks without train protection system
(black) and without train protection system tagging (grey). With current
state of tagging, we have to query dozens of tags to be sure that a
track has no train protection system.

Current tagging is very Germany-centric. If ORM were a map only for DB,
ÖBB and SBB, this would not be a problem. If we want to be a good train
protection system map, we now have to query AT LEAST following tags:
* railway:pzb
* railway:lzb
* railway:etcs
* railway:crocodile
* railway:zub
* …

We should change tagging to three or four keys for different system
categories and should give the installed systems by a
semicolon-separated value list. The categories should be:

* railway:train_protection:point for systems like PZB and Integra Signum
* railway:train_protection:continous for systems like LZB
* railway:train_protection:etcs=yes/1/2/3 for ETCS (it is so important
that it should has its own key)

Do you think that we need more keys?

Examples:
* typical German main line: railway:train_protection:point=pzb
* typical German high speed line (generation 1–3):
railway:train_protection:point=pzb + railway:train_protection:continous=lzb
* Leipzig–Berlin: railway:train_protection:point=pzb +
railway:train_protection:continous=lzb + (a tag for ETCS)
* Singen–Schaffhausen: railway:train_protection:point=pzb;integra_signum

Best regards

Michael

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openrailwaymap.org/archives/openrailwaymap/attachments/20141127/d71f70dc/attachment.sig>


More information about the Openrailwaymap mailing list