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@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@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@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@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@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@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
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@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@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@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@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@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@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@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Am Montag, 15. Juni 2020, 01:56:10 CEST schrieb Chuck Sanders:
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
What is a line? "Trains drive from A to B"? That is of no interest here, this is only about the infrastructure, which should in basically all cases just boil down to the owner. At least I _really_ doubt by all experience that more than 1, and by no practical means more than 2 companies can get it right to co-maintain such infrastructure. One that does the tracks and one for the signalling maybe, but everything else? Tell me how that really works ;) Maybe it works legally, but I fear for the safety of your infrastructure then :P
When you have a freight line running from coast to coast and where the engines come from 10 different companies, that is just a route=railway (or something similar) relation on top of that. This will not be rendered by OpenRailwayMap. It's the same problem we have with all the subway infrastructure where people tend to add ref=N where N is the line number on that tracks. It could even be right, but in basically all cases it is not. Personal toy: in Hanover the lines are numbered, but the infrastructure has letters, so it's easy to spot wrong tagging.
Eike
Hi,
Am 2020-06-15 07:16, schrieb Rolf Eike Beer:
Am Montag, 15. Juni 2020, 01:56:10 CEST schrieb Chuck Sanders:
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
What is a line? "Trains drive from A to B"? That is of no interest here, this is only about the infrastructure, which should in basically all cases just boil down to the owner. At least I _really_ doubt by all experience that more than 1, and by no practical means more than 2 companies can get it right to co-maintain such infrastructure. One that does the tracks and one for the signalling maybe, but everything else? Tell me how that really works ;) Maybe it works legally, but I fear for the safety of your infrastructure then :P
When you have a freight line running from coast to coast and where the engines come from 10 different companies, that is just a route=railway (or something similar) relation on top of that. This will not be rendered by OpenRailwayMap.
It's the same problem we have with all the subway infrastructure where people tend to add ref=N where N is the line number on that tracks. It could even be right, but in basically all cases it is not. Personal toy: in Hanover the lines are numbered, but the infrastructure has letters, so it's easy to spot wrong tagging.
There is no difference between Train Operating Companies and Network operators in North America. By default, every railway runs its own trains on their network, which they own and operate by themselves. There is no open access.
But in some rare cases, there are railway lines with several operators, based on very long-standing contracts, which hardly ever change. Usually, all operators involved in the specific line consider it part of their network.
As far as I know, this happens in the following rare cases: 1) two lines of different operators run in parallel and are operated together as one multi-track line for higher capacity 2) two lines of different operators were never completed, but yield a complete line together 3) one operator had to give another operator trackage rights for a specific line because of antitrust legislation
Case 1) is obviously limited to the parallel sections of the two lines and their 2 operators.
Case 2) can be best illustrated on an extreme example (there are more): The Denver - Colorado line of UP and BNSF. See https://denversrailroads.com/Denver/Timetables/UP_Denver_TT4_11-16-09.pdf (page 39). UP considers this line Colorado Springs Subdivision, BSNF considers it the Colorado Division. The actual ownership is quite scattered.
The timetable and the system special instructions (similar to German VzG/MNS, Ersatzbuchfahrplan, La and Angaben zum Streckenbuch) on this line are completely done by BNSF. Dispatching/interlocking is partly done by UP and partly by BNSF, but these sections don't match the sections of ownership. The responsibility for maintenance is not published, but I'd guess, that it is assigned by practical reasons as well on this line, not by actual ownership. And in the end, the line is used by trains of both operators. Otherwise no through trains would be possible. Therefore, both companies consider the complete line as part of their network.
Even Case 3) is rare and only used to fill in gaps within one operators network. It is not applied to reach completely different parts of the country. In the United States, there is no operator with a network of own and shared lines spanning from coast to coast except for AMTRAK passenger trains.
I don't know whether there are freight trains running trough between severall networks. If there are any, I'd guess, that the responsibility changes at the network borders like it does on country borders in Europe.
regards, Micha
openrailwaymap@openrailwaymap.org
-
Chuck Sanders -
Michael Kümmling -
Rolf Eike Beer