9:25 a.m.
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.