Dear contributors,
The Dutch national law (https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0017707/2020-04-01%C2%A0appendix 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.
Best regards, JJJWegdam
Am Dienstag, 19. Januar 2021, 22:49:52 CET schrieb JJJ Wegdam via Openrailwaymap:
Dear contributors,
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.
Opinions?
Eike
Am 22.01.21 um 13:46 schrieb Rolf Eike Beer:
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.
I support your proposal. If a signal has different variants, which share the same number, name and meaning, it should have one value in OSM/ORM as well.
Regards, Micha
Could I please get some examples of this on OSM? links would be great.
Thanks, Nat email: natfoot@gmail.com
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 8:42 AM Michael Kümmling michael@kuemmling.eu wrote:
Am 22.01.21 um 13:46 schrieb Rolf Eike Beer:
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
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.
I support your proposal. If a signal has different variants, which share the same number, name and meaning, it should have one value in OSM/ORM as well.
Regards, Micha
Hi,
Am 22/01/2021 um 17.42 schrieb Michael Kümmling:
I support your proposal. If a signal has different variants, which share the same number, name and meaning, it should have one value in OSM/ORM as well.
I support railway:signal:train_protection:shape=triangle, too. It can also be used in other contexts (for example, the mentioned German variants of Hp light signals from various epochs).
Best regards
Michael
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
I turned this into a proposal in the wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/railway:signal:*:shape
Please add images of the NL signals if you have them and can share them (please also consider adding them to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ Category:Railway_signals_in_the_Netherlands).
This is a draft. I would welcome if you could come up with additional wording on the discussion page, I will transfer it to the main page then.
openrailwaymap@openrailwaymap.org
-
JJJ Wegdam -
Michael Kümmling -
Michael Reichert -
Natfoot -
Rolf Eike Beer