We got this generally sorted out on the US talk list, but I have a
follow-up question where I feel like I need the wisdom of the ORM mailing
list more specifically.
We have a long term need in North America to preface our current
combination of [ref=*] [name=*] for labelling of main tracks with these
reporting marks, which is what got us started on the initial question about
the tag a week and a half ago. It's a universal industry mapping standard
here, and ORM won't be considered usable by the majority of potential users
here until we get that done ... but we're a long way off, and right now I'm
only concerned with a very specific question.
In the vast majority of cases here, lines have a single operator, but there
are many, many cases of multiple secondary operators (there is always one
primary operator, who is almost always the owner of the infrastructure).
I'm going to pick a specific example I have with three operators just to
have a simple case to discuss. Ordinarily, for tags with multiple values,
the convention is to separate them with a semicolon (example
reporting_marks="NS;CA;NPBL"). However, my question is - there is a
specific industry standard way this information needs to be rendered on the
map later, and that is "NS (CA, NPBL)", where all secondary operators are
enclosed in parentheses and comma separated. Later map labelling would be
simpler if we just entered this tag value as it's meant to be labeled.
However, is there a reason we should enter it in the normal,
semicolon-delimited way, knowing we'll have to do something more
complicated later with a renderer to make this come out usable? My main
thought is, I know there are many other users of this overall data set, and
having the multiple operators listed in the display format may break a
potential future use I'm not aware of.
Which way is it better to format the data, and why? I have just enough
ability to read/play with CartoCSS and MapCSS to look through a setup file
and understand what it's doing, but not enough to actually set up a new
rendering style; so, I also don't have the experience to know if
re-presenting the semicolon-delimited data the proper way for the rendering
is easy to do with the standard rendering stack, either. My initial
thought of entering the data in the presentation format ( "NS (CA, NPBL)"
example), is that it makes rendering blindingly simple, as
[reporting_marks=*] [ref=*] [name=*].
I definitely appreciate any input anyone could offer. Thanks!
Chuck
VA, USA
On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 12:32 PM Chuck Sanders <nathhad(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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
>>>
>>