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_protection_systems, 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

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@openrailwaymap.org
To unsubscribe send an email to openrailwaymap-leave@openrailwaymap.org
Archived version of this message: https://lists.openrailwaymap.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/openrailwaymap@openrailwaymap.org/message/FT7UORLMVTEINFJTC3ICZ4RQ46FRVTYC/
Archive of this list: https://lists.openrailwaymap.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/openrailwaymap@openrailwaymap.org/