This tagging discussion is relevant for PR703 so I added a copy of this email there.
Dear community,
EBICAB is a trademark for on-board equipment, from a specific supplier (Bombardier). The entire train protection system contains some other things [1]. The entire system is called ATC in Norway and Sweden, while Portugal calls the exact same system CONVEL. To add more confusion: Denmark calls [its own system](https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ZUB_123) ATC [2], while it is incompatible with the Norse/Swedish/Portuguese system.
Also the current situation in OSM is different than you currently envision (with adding the `railway:ebicab=700` tag): in the past I already added `railway:atc=yes` tags to relevant tracks in both Portugal and Norway with the same purpose. You also envision the `railway:ebicab=900` tag (probably for Finland) while Finland uses the `railway:jkv=yes` tag with the same purpose. Denmark is a bit of a blank slate, because Denmark doesn't have train protection tags yet.
OpenRailwayMap has 2 options:
1. Render compatible systems
consequences:
a) we proceed with this PR as is
b) we have to retag Portugal, Sweden, Norway and Finland (I'm willing to help)
c) we should create an additional PR to also render `railway:zub=123`
d) Denmark should be tagged with `railway:zub=123`
2. Render local names
consequences:
a) this PR should change to `railway:convel=yes`
b) we should retag portugal from `railway:ebicab=700`/`railway:atc=yes` to `railway:convel=yes`
c) we need an additional PR to render `railway:atc=yes`
c) Denmark should be tagged with `railway:atc=yes`
I am in favor of option 1, because my opinion is that the goal of ORM signalling layer should be to show compatibility.
Best regards,
JJJWegdam
[1] Overview of train protection systems in PT, DK, NO, SE, FI as far as I currently understand them
[2] Danish border, seen from Germany. Note the start-of-ATC signs.
Hi all,
the tag usage=tourism currently prevents the mapping in OpenRailwayMap.
Unfortunately this tag is still recommended in the Map Features document
(at least in German). What do you recommend to solve this issue?
Regards, Eckhard (EM311)
Wie tagge ich "Ziergleise"? Damit meine ich Gleise oder gleisähnliche
Anlagen, die nicht befahrbar sind oder waren, und nur zur Markierung der
Lage früherer Gleise dienen.
Ich vermute, dass diese "Ziergleise" aus denkmalschutzgründen verlegt
wurden.
Beispiel: Auf dem Gelände der früheren Munitionsfabrik in Sevran
befindet sich nun ein Park. Teils sind alte Wege mit darin liegenden
Gleisen der Werksbahn erhalten. Wenn die Parkverwaltung dort einen
solchen Weg erneuert, werden zwei Metallprofile etwa am Ort der früheren
Schienenköpfe bündig mit der Oberfläche in den neuen Weg eingelassen.
Die "Spurweite" der Ziergleise ähnelt der der alten echten Gleise (man
erkennt also noch, wo früher ein Schmalspur vs. ein Normalspurgleis
lag), weicht aber oft auch bis zu etwa 10 cm ab.
Philipp
Wie tagge ich eine verfüllte Drehscheibengrube?
Die Bühne fehlt, die Grube ist mit Beton verfüllt. Der Rand ist noch gut
zu erkennen, ebenso die Gleise bis zum Rand der Grube.
Philipp
Dear contributors,
The Dutch national law (https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0017707/2020-04-01 appendix 2, chapter 13) allows two types of ETCS stop marker signs under the same signal reference number:
This makes tagging a bit harder than usual. Normally we would just say:
railway:signal:train_protection = nl:227b
Because there are two types of signs I propose the tags:
railway:signal:train_protection = nl:227b_triangle
railway:signal:train_protection = nl:227b_arrow
In case we agree about this, I will proceed with changing the wiki and my (currently 'paused') pull request.
Best regards,
JJJWegdam
