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&gt; 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.