7:21 p.m.
Hi Tyson,
I agree that to discuss similarities/differences between specific ground
truths of traffic control or train protection is futile to the best goals
of ORM.
I agree that with the assessment that there is immense value in including
non-directly-observable information in ORM but disagree respectfully that
OpenStreetMap is not the best place for some of this data. I also agree
that the "on-the-ground" rule/principle will become increasingly difficult
to adhere to and will be our limiting factor with OSM. This limiting factor
is problematic here in the railway list and in the general OSM community.
Within my first email my assertion was that train movement in either case,
(Traffic Control or Train Protection), is bound by a set of rules either
provided by the rule book or the track territory(Government or Company
Document). In addition I stated that "We have two layers of information to
be provided, one is Authorization, Track Authority or permission that is
given to a train and we have oversight or digital control." The first being
what is Traffic Control and the second being Train Protection for this
context. I also stated that " ...it appears that Track Authorization
(Traffic Control) is completely omitted from OSM." I will agree that my
concluding statement was confusing and did not make the best points. I was
thinking more off the cuff rather than in the context that we have
discussed.
Thank You for your support of including a traffic control or signalling
tagging schema in the future. My intentions are more to draw attention to
the data that is unmapped within OSM that is similar to train protection,
as we have discussed. And to discuss the appropriateness of that data so
that I can better focus my efforts on my project.
Best Regards,
Nathan P
email: natfoot(a)gmail.com
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 2:43 AM Tyson Moore <tyson(a)tyson.me> wrote:
Hi Nathan,
I don't think it's productive to discuss the similarities/differences
between specific operating rules or train protection systems in the US
and Canada on-list. Clearly, we have differing views on what does or
doesn't qualify as being directly observable on the ground, but that's
not something I think we need to reconcile for reasons I'll lay out.
I agree with your and Maarten's assessments that there is immense value
in including non-directly-observable information in ORM, no matter where
we draw the line. As wayside infrastructure starts to disappear in
favour of radio communication, I think the "on-the-ground"
rule/principle will become increasingly difficult to adhere to.
My sticking point with your original proposal is including operating
rules in the train protection systems tagging schema. I'm not
necessarily trying to nitpick anything else; I'm more thinking out loud
about where more description (good!) would fit in (purely from a user's
perspective). On this point though, I have to agree with Michael: ETCS,
LZB, AWS/TPWS, ACSES, PTC, etc. are clearly distinct from OCS, CTC, TWC,
cautionary limits, etc. and IMO should have a distinct tagging schema.
I would gladly support a proposal to add tagging for operational rules
*iff* it can be done in a sensible way that doesn't conflate these two
concepts.
I'll keep monitoring the discussion.
Cheers,
--Tyson