Openrailwaymap October 2023

openrailwaymap@openrailwaymap.org

3 participants
3 discussions

Train protection system naming inconsitencies
by 1993matiaslq＠gmail.com 26 Nov '23

26 Nov '23

Hello, I have started to improve the data on the Danish railway network. Despite some initial troubles and mistakes, I have begun to do some good progress. Unfortunately, I have reached an issue with train protection systems. It is defined that the Danish train protection system should be tagged as ZUB123 (the technical name), not ATC (the common name). What confuses me is that Sweden tags their system ATC (the common name) rather than Ebicab700 (the technical name). Why is there this inconsistency? And why has it not been resolved since the last discussion about it two years ago? Is there anything I can do to help the change, or is it a lost cause now? Also, where is the best place to talk about OpenRailwayMap? The OpenStreetMap Discord channel for OpenRailwayMap is not that active, mailing lists here seem dead, what else...? Thanks, Matias

6 13

Re: Train protection system naming inconsitencies
by Rolf Eike Beer 14 Oct '23

14 Oct '23

Am Dienstag, 3. Oktober 2023, 17:58:01 CEST schrieb Björn Mahrt: > Hello, > > > I just wanted to ask about the current state of the proposal in > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Railway:train_protection > . It very much seems that (as many additional train protection systems > are added to openrailwaymap) the issue is quite relevant and it would be > very helpful to be a step further. What do you think? How to push it a > bit more? > > Or differently asked: What is missing to step further? An agreement on the systems. Both the table on the actual proposal page as well as the discussion page is quite long and has many valid concerns about how things should be tagged. This starts with something simple like ETCS. I'm very much in favor if we strip this down to a second, simplified proposal that covers the "no" case (as that really helps cleaning up the quite messy database queries we already have) and maybe those that we can get a broad agreement on. This will likely include ETCS, and maybe the German systems as to my limited understanding they are a vendor independent standard across the country. Systems that are delivered by only a single vendor, and wher the same thing is sold under the same name with different configurations to differrent railway operators are… quite another mess. I think if we first want to reach consensus on them the basic proposal will never land. And then we could ship validator rules that just warn for any tag outside the agreed ones to avoid too much noise sneaking into the database. Greetings, Eike

1 0

Re: Train protection system naming inconsitencies
by Rolf Eike Beer 14 Oct '23

14 Oct '23

Am Mittwoch, 4. Oktober 2023, 09:41:19 CEST schrieb Matias Lq: > Unfortunately it doesn't seem like there is anyone who really decides > anything in OpenRailwayMap, so I don't expect the current state to change > at all... This is OpenStreetMap, there is noone (alone) to decide on anything. For the rendering Nakaner and I can pretty much do anything we want, because noone can stop us. We can also voice our concerns or ideas on how the tagging should be done, but we can always be overruled when a tagging proposal is voted on. This is also an important point on why someone should take part in that vote because even if there are no major objection, if there are simply not enough supporting votes the proposal would still fail. Greetings, Eike

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

Openrailwaymap October 2023