[openrailwaymap] Re: Tagging proposal Dutch ETCS stop markers

Am Dienstag, 19. Januar 2021, 22:49:52 CET schrieb JJJ Wegdam via Openrailwaymap: > The Dutch national law > (https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0017707/2020-04-01 appendix 2, chapter 13) > allows two types of ETCS stop marker signs under the same signal reference > number: > > This makes tagging a bit harder than usual. Normally we would just say: > railway:signal:train_protection = nl:227b > > Because there are two types of signs I propose the tags: > > railway:signal:train_protection = nl:227b_triangle > railway:signal:train_protection = nl:227b_arrow > > In case we agree about this, I will proceed with changing the wiki and my > (currently 'paused') pull request. I think this needs a bit more context. First, this is the PR he is talking about: https://github.com/OpenRailwayMap/OpenRailwayMap/pull/701 It started with an innocent "let's add the ETCS stop marker rendering as used in NL". But then I came up with this: > According to the German Wikipedia this is an older version of the signal > which has been replaced in newer versions of the ETCS standard because it > could be confused with a France signal of different meaning. It looks like both are permitted in NL at the moment and this will not change shortly: > The Netherlands has two ETCS level 2 trajectories (railway lines with ETCS > block markers). The high speed line between Amsterdam and Antwerp has (both > on Dutch and Belgian soil) the triangle-shaped signs. The cargo line from > Rotterdam to the Ruhrgebiet area has arrow-shaped signs. There are no plans > to change the triangle-shaped block marker boards on the high speed line. > My current solution is to use > "railway:signal:train_protection"="DE-ESO:ne14"on the Germany-bound line and > "railway:signal:train_protection"="NL:227b" on the Belgium-bound line. And that is the point where I started to disagree: > Any tagging of DE-ESO signals on a railway line in the Netherlands is plain > wrong, this is just "tagging for the renderer". So, the question is, what are we doing now. In my eyes the whole situation is very similar to what we have regarding H/V light signals in Germany, where there are at least 3 types all tagged the same as they have the same meaning, they just differ in how they are built. I would think adding another subtag like ":version", ":generation", ":shape" or something for all of these cases, and then do something like railway:signal:train_protection = nl:227b railway:signal:train_protection:shape = triangle Shouldn't this be NL instead? railway:signal:main = DE-ESO:hp railway:signal:main:form = light railway:signal:main:shape = compact The same also applies for the newer signals where entirely different shapes are in use if mounted inside a tunnel or beneath a platform roof: railway:signal:main = DE-ESO:ks railway:signal:main:shape = tunnel The advantage is that noone has to do case switching if the actual form of the signal isn't relevant, e.g. when doing some sort of routing, you only need to know there _is_ a signal. Renderers then can look at the subtags and decide to use whatever default fits best if it is not present.