Openrailwaymap

openrailwaymap@openrailwaymap.org

306 discussions

RFC - Discourage railway=preserved
by Kai Michael Poppe - OSM 05 Apr '21

05 Apr '21

Hello list! I have created a new Proposal in the OSM Wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Discourage_railway%3D… This is to further support your wish to use railway:preserved=yes instead of railway=preserved. I would be glad if many of you would discuss and also support the proposal, once voting has started. Thank you for your support! Kai

3 2

Re: Tagging decision: ebicab, atc, convel, zub123
by Patrik Ekengren 18 Mar '21

18 Mar '21

Hi, What is the status of this proposal? I was pointed here after asking about how to make ATC visible as a train protection system in Sweden on openrailwaymap.org. Has anything further been made? I can see that there is a pull request (#703) still open. But has there been any work on re-tagging or proposal on new tagging scheme? In my opinion, it would require too much work to re-tag all the tracks in Portugal, Sweden, Norway and Finland. And I cannot read from the request what the new tagging should be. I am not an expert in this area, but I think tagging Swedish railways with ebicab=700 would not be correct. There are two kinds of on-board equipment in Sweden: Bombardier (ebicos) and Ansaldo. Both equipment can be used on tracks in Sweden equipped with what is called ATC (or ATC-2). If re-tagging should be made, I like the idea by Rolf Eike Beer to make a new tag, like railway:train_protection=DE:PZB, DE:LZB, ETCS:2.3, NO:ATC, SE:ATC, PT:CONVEL, FI:JKV. But for now, I think it would be better just to add code to render railway:atc and railway:ebicab, either separately or with the same color. And later, if and when a new tagging scheme has become common practice, this rendering can be updated using the new tag. Best regards Patrik Rolf Eike Beer wrote: > > 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` > If we are going to retag things, I still think that defining a > railway:train_protection=* system is much less work. Think about your PRs: how > many railway:foobar=no tags do you want to get a "proper" selector for "no > > system". > > We should leave the already established systems as they are for now, to avoid > a mass conversion, and only use this for "new" systems for the moment. > > I also think we should consider adding country prefixes for these tagging > systems, it's likely that common names like "ATP" or something like that may > > show up more than once on the planet, so we would get DE:PZB. > > And when we are thinking about, lets just think one step ahead: how do we want > to tag different levels or versions of the same system, especially if they may > be installed at the same time? > > So, at the end, I think we should end up with something like: > > railway:train_protection=DE:PZB;DE:LZB;ETCS:2.3 > > And for the systems from the previous mail that would be something like: > > NO:ATC, SE:ATC, PT:CONVEL, FI:JKV > > At the end it should probably be DK:ATC instead of DK:ZUB123 as we usually use > the local names in OSM. Jeroen Wegdam wrote: > Dear community, > > As far as I can see, there are no objections to my proposal. If that remains the case > until Wednesday 10th of February, I’ll update the tagging scheme and start executing the > ToDo’s from option 1. > > Best regards, > JJJWegdam > > > > Op 30 jan. 2021 om 13:33 heeft JJJ Wegdam <jwegdam(a)me.com> het > > volgende geschreven: > > > > > > 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.

2 1

Signalling rendering and legend translation
by Patrik Ekengren 17 Mar '21

17 Mar '21

Hi, I recently started to improve the railway data and tagging in Sweden, particularly around the Stockholm area. However, I have noticed that the Swedish translation of the legend at openrailwaymap.org is in some cases missing, wrong, or misleading. Is there a way I can improve the translation? I also see that the signalling map style does not show anything except ETCS in Sweden. But most parts of the railway network is equipped with the ATC signalling system. And the map data is also correctly tagged for this. Is there a way to include ATC in the signalling map style? Regards Patrik

2 3

France and European longest straight stretch of railway line
by Pierre dHarcourt 11 Mar '21

11 Mar '21

Hi, I’m currently working on a project with the French rail operator aiming at tracking the trains thanks to GNSS, INS and railway digital map fusion. The system works better when the train moves on curved tracks with a low radius of curvature. Considering that the tracks are in a straight line when the radius of curvature is above a defined threshold (such as 10 km) has anyone tried to identify the France and European longest straight stretch of railway line from OpenRailwayMap data? Regards, Pierre d’Harcourt

3 3

usage=tourism
by Eckhard M 19 Feb '21

19 Feb '21

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)

2 1

"Ziergleise"?
by Philipp Klaus Krause 17 Feb '21

17 Feb '21

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

2 1

Verfüllte Drehscheibengrube?
by Philipp Klaus Krause 17 Feb '21

17 Feb '21

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

2 1

Tagging proposal Dutch ETCS stop markers
by JJJ Wegdam 11 Feb '21

11 Feb '21

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

5 5

Re: Tagging proposal Dutch ETCS stop markers
by JJJ Wegdam 23 Jan '21

23 Jan '21

Dear Eike, Thanks for your amendment. I agree with your proposed improvements. I'll change the relevant part of the wiki and my recent pull request to match your tagging scheme proposal: railway:signal:train_protection = NL:227b railway:signal:train_protection:shape = triangle I won't do this immediately; I'll do it as soon as this mail discussion had no new input for one week. Best regards, JJJWegdam Op 22 januari 2021 om 17:42 uur schreef Michael Kümmling <michael(a)kuemmling.eu>: Am 22.01.21 um 13:46 schrieb Rolf Eike Beer: Am Dienstag, 19. Januar 2021, 22:49:52 CET schrieb JJJ Wegdam via Openrailwaymap: 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. I think this needs a bit more context. First, this is the PR he is talking about: https://github.com/OpenRailwayMap/OpenRailwayMap/pull/701 It started with an innocent "let's add the ETCS stop marker rendering as used in NL". But then I came up with this: According to the German Wikipedia this is an older version of the signal which has been replaced in newer versions of the ETCS standard because it could be confused with a France signal of different meaning. It looks like both are permitted in NL at the moment and this will not change shortly: The Netherlands has two ETCS level 2 trajectories (railway lines with ETCS block markers). The high speed line between Amsterdam and Antwerp has (both on Dutch and Belgian soil) the triangle-shaped signs. The cargo line from Rotterdam to the Ruhrgebiet area has arrow-shaped signs. There are no plans to change the triangle-shaped block marker boards on the high speed line. My current solution is to use "railway:signal:train_protection"="DE-ESO:ne14"on the Germany-bound line and "railway:signal:train_protection"="NL:227b" on the Belgium-bound line. And that is the point where I started to disagree: Any tagging of DE-ESO signals on a railway line in the Netherlands is plain wrong, this is just "tagging for the renderer". So, the question is, what are we doing now. In my eyes the whole situation is very similar to what we have regarding H/V light signals in Germany, where there are at least 3 types all tagged the same as they have the same meaning, they just differ in how they are built. I would think adding another subtag like ":version", ":generation", ":shape" or something for all of these cases, and then do something like railway:signal:train_protection = nl:227b railway:signal:train_protection:shape = triangle Shouldn't this be NL instead? railway:signal:main = DE-ESO:hp railway:signal:main:form = light railway:signal:main:shape = compact The same also applies for the newer signals where entirely different shapes are in use if mounted inside a tunnel or beneath a platform roof: railway:signal:main = DE-ESO:ks railway:signal:main:shape = tunnel The advantage is that noone has to do case switching if the actual form of the signal isn't relevant, e.g. when doing some sort of routing, you only need to know there _is_ a signal. Renderers then can look at the subtags and decide to use whatever default fits best if it is not present. I support your proposal. If a signal has different variants, which share the same number, name and meaning, it should have one value in OSM/ORM as well. Regards, Micha

1 0

Railroad Signals, Specifically the ISO
by Natfoot 08 Jan '21

08 Jan '21

Hello Discussion List, Could someone fill me in on a chart of examples of this: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Arailway%3Asignal%3Adistant%3Astat… And This: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:railway:signal:speed_l… I am in the USA / North America. Thank You, Nat P email: natfoot(a)gmail.com

4 6

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
...
31
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

Openrailwaymap