For me - both pieces of information are interesting.
TrainProtectionSystem.Name=ATC
TrainProtectionSystem.Model=ZUB123
If it is not possible to tag both pieces of information, is it possible
to leave the tagging as originally specified here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging#Train_protecti...,
in which case Denmark would be tagged with railway:zub123=yes, but then
render it as ATC when the data is viewed?
That would avoid having to redo any tagging, and keep the useful
information about the equipment type (model) for extraction using other
tools for those interested in that information.
Cheers,
Ross
On 19.04.2023 13.10, 1993matiaslq(a)gmail.com wrote:
tomasmarklund75@gmail.com wrote:
> Well, 'ATC' isn't ambigous in Sweden. In Sweden, there is only one ATC,
and it
> will never be mixed up with japanese or bulgarian ATC.
Does that mean we should also tag Danish, Bulgarian, or Japanese ATC as
"Railway:atc=yes"?
> And the system IS called ATC, signs along the track say "ATC begins" or
> "ATC ends" or similar, documentation for drivers etc say ATC, documentation
on
> the Trafikverket website says ATC. ATC everywhere, never Ebicab. So it would be
fairly
> confusing to tag the railways with something "no one"* has heard of.
Because of
> this, I do NOT vote for changing tags in sweden from ATC to Ebicab. If something has
to be
> changed, then ATC-SE is a better choise.
So why should Danish ATC be tagged ZUB123? All signs say ATC, all driver documentation
say ATC, (almost) no-one has heard about ZUB123. Yet that is still the tag used for
Denmark.
Openrailwaymap mailing list --openrailwaymap(a)openrailwaymap.org
To unsubscribe send an email toopenrailwaymap-leave(a)openrailwaymap.org
Archived version of this
message:https://lists.openrailwaymap.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/openrai...
Archive of this
list:https://lists.openrailwaymap.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/openrailwa...