Openrailwaymap

openrailwaymap@openrailwaymap.org

306 discussions

Proposal for voting
by garry.keenor＠gmail.com 23 Jun '20

23 Jun '20

Thank you to those of you who responded to my previous thread on tagging 4th rail systems (https://lists.openrailwaymap.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/openrailwaymap@op…) We have taken those views into account and have now proceeded to the voting stage of a formal OSM proposal which you can read and vote on here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/3rd_and_4th_rail I would welcome you support and votes on this proposal. best regards, Garry

1 0

Tagging, North America vs international: milepost at operating sites
by Chuck Sanders 19 Jun '20

19 Jun '20

I'm trying to figure out another North American tag interpretation, to keep us consistent with everyone else. For most North American railroads, operating sites like junctions, siding ends, and crossovers (really, all Control Points) are referred to by name and milepost (and milepost here is most often alphanumeric, example "LP 1.9" for a site named "Colley Avenue"). We've been discussing internally how to tag these this week, and realized we probably need a better international interpretation to help us stay consistent. My initial thought a week ago was that this would probably be railway:position. However, that tag isn't included by default in the tagging scheme for these types of operating sites, and based on how it's used, others have pointed out to me that this is probably a better fit for railway:ref for these sites. I tend to agree. For a good, quick typical view of how these are used, see here for a page out of an employee timetable (which is really the reference book for the subdivision), page 4 (PDF page 8) where the above example was taken: http://www.multimodalways.org/docs/railroads/companies/NS/NS%20ETTs/NS%20VA… So far in North America, railway:ref is only being used for the three-letter codes for passenger stations, which is a very clear correct use. Using that tag for the many, many control point operating sites we have would very much be a different use to what's already done, so I'd want to verify that it's correct and intended before actually implementing it. After all, if we stuck with railroad:position for this, it would leave railroad:ref an "uncluttered" tag for passenger stations, which do represent its most important use. What is the sense of the wider community here on how this was meant to work? A large part of the reason I've been bringing so many of these NA-specific questions to the list over the past week and a half is that we've been starting to work up a simplified NA-specific JOSM tagging preset. Anything I include as an implicit tag interpretation is going to potentially get repeated over the map quite a bit, so I'm trying to be *really* careful about making sure my understanding of the tags built into the preset tools is correct, so they will be correctly applied. Thanks for your help and input, Chuck

2 3

Fwd: [Talk-us] Rail tagging in US (and North America): operator=* and reporting_marks=*
by Chuck Sanders 15 Jun '20

15 Jun '20

We started a discussion this week on the OSM Talk-US list, because we're looking to create a tag to store the operator's short form designation (Reporting Marks system in Canada, Mexico, and the US). Most rail maps generated in the US use the reporting marks for route operator labeling rather than the operator name, and this reporting mark is also used in the US federal GIS database as the primary operator designator, so it has authoritative backing for use. One of our international readers suggested that rather than using a NA-specific tag like reporting_mark, we use something more broadly applicable like operator_identifier. I agree that's a great idea, but wanted input from the wider OpenRailwayMap community on what that tag should be before we implement something. Does "operator_identifier" make clear sense to you as a holder for an official short-form (initials or alphanumeric) designator for an operator, if such a short form is used for a particular railroad? Is there something else that might convey the idea even more clearly? For our part, it's very easy to add a line in the North American tagging wiki to make clear that whatever name we select for the tag, it is to be the Reporting Marks for railroads in our part of the world. Thanks! Chuck Virginia, USA ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Chuck Sanders <nathhad(a)gmail.com> Date: Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 12:17 PM Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Rail tagging in US (and North America): operator=* and reporting_marks=* To: <talk-us(a)openstreetmap.org> Actually, that makes complete sense to me too. It would be very easy to use "operator_identifier", and simply clarify in the North America tagging wiki that the appropriate value is the primary reporting mark for Canada, US, and Mexico lines. I see no reason that wouldn't serve exactly the same use we were proposing, but be more widely applicable outside NA. This may be a good topic to foward to the OpenRailwayMap list for input too - I'll do that now, thanks! Chuck On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 12:07 PM Volker Schmidt <voschix(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks. > > so you are saying you use something which is part of of rolling stock > identifier in a way for which it was not invented, but which is handy. > From an OSM point of view, I would prefer a neutral tag (something like > "operator_idenitfier") which in the US corresponds to the first part of the > reporting mark of the carriages of that operator. > And say in Germany it would be a different thing, but still a way of > identifying line operators. > This would give us a uniform approach. > (I know that this is in theory irrelevant as OSM keys and values are > codes, which in most cases are British English terms that make it easier to > memorise them) > > Volker > > On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 at 16:56, Chuck Sanders <nathhad(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Ways. >> >> The original use of Reporting Marks in NA is for rolling stock >> identification, yes. However, it's also the only common, reliable, and >> consistent short form abbreviation for operators. It's widely used that >> way in both the railroad industry here and among the industry-connected >> portions of the public. So, not an official defined use of the mark, but >> so common in use that it is effectively industry standard here. For >> example, the FRA, the official US government agency in control of railway >> regulations, exclusively uses the reporting marks (and not full operator >> name) for identification of ways and routes in their GIS database ( >> https://fragis.fra.dot.gov/GISFRASafety/ which is OSM-compatible and >> already being used as a reference in the US). Hence, we have an official >> and authoritative source for which reporting mark is "primary" for each >> company, and most appropriate to use - and it's already used as the >> operator identification in the government map. >> >> All larger railroads do own (and often use) multiple different reporting >> marks for their equipment, but all also have a single, best known, >> "primary" reporting mark by which it will be commonly known, so this >> proposal is effective even for lines with multiple registered marks >> (especially with the help of the FRA map to clarify any inconsistencies). >> >> Chuck >> >> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 9:35 AM Volker Schmidt <voschix(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Question on the term "reporting_mark" >>> Wikipedia defines "reporting_mark" as "code used to identify owners or >>> lessees of rolling stock <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_stock> >>> and other equipment" and describes such codes alo in other parts of the >>> world. >>> In your discussion you seem to refer to railway lines or routes and not >>> to rolling stock. >>> >>> What kind objects in OSM will carry the tag reporting_mark=* ? >>> >>> Volker >>> (Italy) >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Talk-us mailing list >>> Talk-us(a)openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >>> >>

3 3

ref:LA
by Natfoot 13 Jun '20

13 Jun '20

Can anyone tell me what ref=La means? I found it here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/548153212 Thank You, Nathan P email: natfoot(a)gmail.com

2 1

Using pzb and lzb absence for "no train protection"
by JJJ Wegdam 13 Jun '20

13 Jun '20

Dear ORM community, As far as I know, the signalling layer renders train protection absence as soon as a way contains railway:pzb=no and railway:lzb=no. I implemented this throughout over 10 European countries. A user from Belgium is now complaining about this. He argues that Belgium doesn't have the PZB nor the LZB system anywhere in the country and that thus these tags should not be in the country. Could you please provide your thoughts on this complaint? You can contribute to the discussion at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85628039#map=13/50.8173/4.3336 or reply to this email. Best regards, Jeroen

12 20

Intro
by uscgaux32＠gmail.com 12 Jun '20

12 Jun '20

I am new to this forum, my interests are Automatic Train Protection, and ERTMS signalling via GSM-R

1 0

Intro
by uscgaux32＠gmail.com 12 Jun '20

12 Jun '20

I am new to this forum, my interests are Automatic Train Protection, and ERTMS signalling via GSM-R

1 0

owner_change and border
by Eckhard M 23 May '20

23 May '20

Hi all, I have seen that railway=owner_change is used not only for real owner changes but even for district borders etc. From my understanding that is not meant by the definition of this tag. Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3933432097 I mean that the right way is like this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3583040676 Even the the tag railway=border is used in wrong way I think. Is this meant for federals state borders? Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2437528281 What do you all think? Regards, Eckhard https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/EM311

2 2

Track missing
by Eckhard M 23 May '20

23 May '20

Hi all, I am wondering why the railway track 6949 is not shown in ORM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7905077#map=14/54.1293/12.2472&layer… Any ideas?

3 4

Re: Adding usage tag for multiple ways
by Jeroen Wegdam 22 May '20

22 May '20

Dear Peter, The issue you describe is familiar to me. The UK OSM ways contain a lot of irregular tag combinations like usage=yard and usage=cargo. The last couple of months I’ve been working on these issues (along with adding speed limits) in England, Wales and Scotland. I hope that it is already solving more and more of the problems you describe. If you want to contribute, I would recommend to install and use JOSM (https://josm.openstreetmap.de/). It allows you to download specific relations/ways/nodes from the OSM database through queries. Another possibility is to search the data you downloaded for specific properties. You can use these features to look problematic properties like “railway=rail -usage=* -service=*”. When you found the ways, you can add the appropriate tags. If you need further help on this, feel free to let me know. Best regards, Jeroen > Op 19 mei 2020 om 14:57 heeft Rolf Eike Beer <eike(a)sf-mail.de> het volgende geschreven: > > Am Dienstag, 19. Mai 2020, 12:33:38 CEST schrieb osm(a)peterrobins.co.uk: >> I've been looking at OpenRailwayMap for GB, where I live. I thought at first >> that it was missing numerous lines, but on investigating further I find >> that this is because large numbers of ways have no usage tag, and it looks >> like OpenRailwayMap only shows lines which are not tagged as 'main' or >> 'branch' when you are zoomed right in. Having to edit each way separately >> would be a large amount of work, especially as lines often consist of >> multiple ways. What's the simplest way of (a) finding which ways don't >> currently have it, and (b) adding the appropriate tag? Without it, I fear >> that OpenRailwayMap is of limited use. > > I'm not entirely sure if I understand your problem. It may be one of the > following 3 (or something entirely different of course): > > -lines with both usage as well as service are not shown: this is a tagging > mistake and we force users to correct there things with that > > -lines without usage are not shown at low zoom levels. Things without usage > are likely minor tracks, drawing them on low zoom levels would clutter the > output and slow down the renderer. If it's important, it probably _is_ a main > or branch line. > > -lines with some special usage values (like military) are permitted to also > have service tagged, but they are currently not rendered (https://github.com/ > OpenRailwayMap/OpenRailwayMap-CartoCSS/issues/7)

2 1

← Newer
1
...
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
...
31
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

Openrailwaymap