Hi Maarten, I agree that the tags railway:pzb, railway:etcs etc. are chosen awkwardly. The tag should express that these are train control systems; now with railway:pzb=* you have to know that pzb is a train control system. If somewhere in the world the system xyz is added, it is not recognisable from the tag as train protection. Therefore I suggest to change railway:pzb|etcs|lzb|atc|...=yes|no into railway:train_protection:pzb|etcs|lzb|atc|...=yes|no . This would provide more clarity and make it possible to actively set a railway:train_protection=no to express that no train protection system exists and to distinguish it from the lack of information. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) - Rainer Am 31.05.20 um 23:31 schrieb Maarten Deen:

Am Montag, 1. Juni 2020, 11:13:54 CEST schrieb Rainer: How about railway:train_protection=pzb;lzb;etcs railway:train_protection:etcs:level=2 That would be only _one_ key to check. We had this discussion years ago, but I don't remember the outcome anymore. Eike

Thanks for your input everyone. I also agree with Eikes proposal. >> Op 1 jun. 2020 om 15:49 heeft Rainer Elbing <r.elbing(a)gmx.de&gt; het volgende geschreven: > Yes Eike, > I agree, one key that can is sufficient and more clear in my opinion. > > Rainer

I would like to add my two cents to this topic. I am starting to realize by going through this email that it appears that Track Authorization (Traffic Control) is completely omitted from OSM. I hope to use the railway tags from OSM/OHM data in a future project. With this in mind here are my comments. 1) The description of railway:train_protection=no is inherently wrong. Train protection is given or accepted by a set of rules either provided by the rule book or the track territory. Now in the case of GCOR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Code_of_Operating_Rules) Rule 6.28 it says "...trains or engines must move at a speed that allows them to stop within half the range of vision short of: Train, Engine, Railroad car, Men or equipment fouling the track, a Stop signal or Derail or switch lined improperly." (6-13 GCOR—Seventh Edition—April 1, 2015) This rule basically says it's a free for all and that it is the responsibility of the train crew to provide the train protection. In the case of Positive Train Control this then becomes an additional responsibility of the computer or system. 2) I am working on my own data set with as many details as possible. Below are the issues of this topic. We have two layers of information to be provided, one is Authorization, Track Authority or permission that is given to a train and we have oversight or digital control. Another thing to consider is that more than two options below could be in effect on any one track. a) Authorization, Track Authority or permission 1) non signaled territory GCOR Rule 6.28 Form_D (DCS) NORAC 2) signaled territory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_signalling CTC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralized_traffic_control ABS / Rule 251 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_block_signaling 3) Could be in both Yard Limits Restricted Limits Time Table Train Orders OCS and Verbal OCS, Occupancy Control System Record Book or Block Book Form_D (DCS) NORAC TWC / ATCS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_Warrant_Control Interlocking DTC Directional Traffic Control b) Oversight or Digital Control PTC Positive Train Control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_train_control Trip Optimizer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_speed_optimization In conclusion in the USA we have lots of "dark territory" which lacks signals or oversight/digital control and is controlled by Track Warrant Control which is a form of train protection. This is important to get ironed out in my data set as I hope to use OSM/OHM data as part of my project. Regards Nathan Proudfoot email: natfoot(a)gmail.com On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 1:59 PM Michael Reichert <osm-ml(a)michreichert.de&gt; wrote:

Hi Michael, Here in America what you are describing in train protection is Positive Train Control (PTC). Positive train control has GPS based land stations and locomotive GPS attachments and hardware. As you say OpenStree Map has a very On The Ground Rule which would be hard to identify PTC technology as it does not have significantly different structure than the existing structures. What is identifiable is CTC or ABS (Centralized Traffic Control) (Automatic Block Signal) as it has on track equipment and signals (balises, magnets, contacts etc.) Here the operating rules are often displayed with signs along the right of way or will let you know when existing or entering a specific territory. (Yard Limits, Restricted Limits, CTC, ABS, etc.) We have signs that say "Begin CTC" Example from Mapillary: https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/natfoot?lat=39.762375&lng=-104.995... In our case a "Company Rule Book" would be needed to identify PTC as that is not common knowledge. The only identifiable visual systems are GPS receivers on railroad hardware, which could be PTC or just a GPS tracker. Unless this information can be requested through the FRA, STB or the general Federal Transportation Commission. Either way you are unlikely to get detailed information needed and this continues to lack the on the ground requirements of OpenStreetMap. Best Regards, Nathan P email: natfoot(a)gmail.com On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 2:00 PM Michael Reichert <osm-ml(a)michreichert.de&gt; wrote:

Hi Nathan, On 2020-06-09 7:21 p.m., Natfoot wrote: ETCS systems have Eurobalises/Euroloops on the track for odometry and other messages, and LZB has cable loops. These are both visible on the ground. PTC and rules are not. I think this is where we need to separate the discussion between rules and train protection. Taking the ETCS example, one can affirmatively assert that a railway line is ETCS-equipped by pointing out Eurobalises/Euroloops. Similarly in the US, one can affirmatively assert that a line is ACSES-equipped by pointing out its balises. Operating rules are not train protection systems. Using the same two examples, I couldn't tell by looking at what's on the ground whether an ETCS-equipped railway line is operating in Level 1, 2, or 3. Similarly, I couldn't tell by looking at what's on the ground whether a North American railway line is OCS or Rule 105/non-main track (or indeed whether it is PTC-equipped in the US). In _some_ circumstances, one may be able to tell where CTC or OCS territory begins and/or ends. While signs for these exist (in some locations), they are not properties of the railway line itself: rather, they are properties of how movements on the railway line are conducted. For example, consider the difference between OCS+ABS and CTC. By simply observing the railway in situ, could you tell the difference between the two? (And the signs don't count, because they could simply be overridden in Special Instructions (or the US equivalent). Moreover, there are no signs that differentiate -- for example -- siding control territory (SCT) from CTC sidings in Canada.) While I could *maybe* see a future schema where things like cautionary limits, yard limits, CTC/OCS limits, station name signs etc. are defined, they certainly don't fall under the existing train protection schema. While we're talking about skirting the rule, I find it peculiar that ITCS is included in the train protection systems schema, since (AFAIK) its main selling point is that it has no trackside infrastructure. Surely if we're going for a consistent "on the ground" approach, we should remove this, no? (I've been following the project and mailing list for a while but can't seem to recall this being discussed recently, and haven't found anything in the archives.) Cheers, --Tyson

I am having difficulties with this nitpicking of what is on the ground and the whole discussion whether or not we are allowed to map it or not. We can also not check the speed of highspeed lines on the ground since they usually have no speed signs. Yet we still do map that. I would be very pissed off if we come to a conclusion that we need absolute 100% on the ground verifiability for each and every item that we map when there are multiple (for OSM legally) usable sources where we can verify the correctness. There is no rule saying we can only map things that are physically observable. The "Map what's on the ground" rule is about what to do when conflicting information is presented, not a ban to not map things you can not observe. Regards, Maarten On 2020-06-10 08:07, Natfoot wrote: >> Hi Tyson, >> >> Here is the issue I have. You say that you can tell whether a >> ETCS-equipped railway line is operating in Level 1, 2, or 3. How >> do you know it is an ETCS-equipped line? Your response would be >> that, "one can affirmatively >> assert that a railway line is ETCS-equipped by pointing out >> Eurobalises/Euroloops." How do you know that? This sounds like >> special knowledge rather than information I can pick up by standing >> next to it or looking directly at it. >> If I may for a moment look at CTC how do I know that that is by >> looking at the signals and shunts. Do I have special knowledge? >> Yes, I do. Does this change your argument? This is what I was asking >> when I said. >> "If we can both assume that we both have extensive working knowledge >> of >> railroads or railways and that we can identify correctly the system >> in >> use. Can we assume that we should be allowed to map it if we can >> look >> at the ground and see that it is what it is? Or do we need to make >> the >> assumption that we don't have a working knowledge of railroads or >> railways and that we need to assume a role as an outsider when >> mapping >> railroads and only map what we can see (signals, switches, balises, >> magnets, contacts etc.)?" >> >> I will agree that understanding if you are looking at a CTC line >> or not is a specialized characteristic of a mapper. And I will also >> assert that understanding if you are looking at an ETCS-equipped >> line and Level 1, 2, or 3 is also a specialized characteristic of a >> mapper. >> >> Be Careful about the use of terminology as it may not be the same. I >> will not assume that the OCS that you are using here means Occupancy >> Control System as I found a completely different meaning on >> Wikipedia. >> >> I would be the first to agree that Train Protection in this context >> primarily aligns with PTC as I described in my previous email: >> " Here in America what you are describing in train protection is >> Positive Train Control (PTC). Positive train control has GPS based >> land stations and locomotive GPS attachments and hardware. " ACSES >> is a specialized version of PTC and not wide spread here. I had to >> look this up to find this out. >> I think we can both agree that the detail in your statement is too >> much detail for OpenStreetMap "(And the signs don't count, because >> they could simply be overridden in Special Instructions (or the US >> equivalent). Moreover, there are no signs that differentiate -- for >> example -- siding control territory (SCT) from CTC sidings in >> Canada.)" Your statement is like saying we should not map the >> seasonal roads as they could be closed. Seasonal roads here are >> tagged as "access:conditional" rather than leaving it without a tag. >> Of course those tags are general and not specific and the road >> department can close the road or make it one way at any time. >> >> In your statement: "While signs for these exist (in some locations), >> they are not properties of the railway line itself: rather, >> they are properties of how movements on the railway line are >> conducted." So what is ACSES, ETCS, and LZB? >> These are not descriptors of the line; these are descriptors in your >> words of wayside equipment (Eurobalises/Euroloops, balises, and >> signals) attached to a system of train protection for train >> moments. I would conclude that "they are not properties of the >> railway line itself: rather,they are properties of how movements on >> the railway line are conducted." >> >> Are these two arguments clear? >> OpenStreetMap is not an ideal place for a lot of the railway data we >> want to add to OpenRailwayMap. I would reconsider the use of >> "Signalling" to "Train Protection" on OpenRailwayMap, if your >> argument stands. Signalling is train movement. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Nathan P >> >> email: natfoot(a)gmail.com >> >> * >> >> Reference: >> As*sert >> _verb_ >> >> * >> >> state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully. >> >> "the company asserts that the cuts will not affect development"

Hi Nathan, I don't think it's productive to discuss the similarities/differences between specific operating rules or train protection systems in the US and Canada on-list. Clearly, we have differing views on what does or doesn't qualify as being directly observable on the ground, but that's not something I think we need to reconcile for reasons I'll lay out. I agree with your and Maarten's assessments that there is immense value in including non-directly-observable information in ORM, no matter where we draw the line. As wayside infrastructure starts to disappear in favour of radio communication, I think the "on-the-ground" rule/principle will become increasingly difficult to adhere to. My sticking point with your original proposal is including operating rules in the train protection systems tagging schema. I'm not necessarily trying to nitpick anything else; I'm more thinking out loud about where more description (good!) would fit in (purely from a user's perspective). On this point though, I have to agree with Michael: ETCS, LZB, AWS/TPWS, ACSES, PTC, etc. are clearly distinct from OCS, CTC, TWC, cautionary limits, etc. and IMO should have a distinct tagging schema. I would gladly support a proposal to add tagging for operational rules *iff* it can be done in a sensible way that doesn't conflate these two concepts. I'll keep monitoring the discussion. Cheers, --Tyson

It seems to me that in regards to mapping train protection/train control/operating rules, that we have several considerations going for us: - There may be no physical infrastructure to an operating rule, but there is consistent behavior.  Consistent behavior can be observed, physically. - It is appropriate to map speed limits on roads.  While these are generally accompanied by speed limit signs, legally (at least in the United States) it is not the sign that governs, it is the legal status of the limit.  If protesters remove or change the signs, the legal speed limit does not change.  Thus when mapping operating rules, the "legal" status of the tracks is what governs, not the presence of infrastructure.  If some vandal removed the signal, train crews are still required to stop for it. - legal operating rules also matter for roadways that are public or private.  They should be mapped differently to avoid confusion even though there may be no physical infrastructure to distinguish them. - This is information which would be useful to the community (including myself, personally) and would not interfere with any existing features.  It is the kind of information that already appears on other maps and has for at least a hundred years (I have such maps in my collection).  Seems to me that the default should be to favor usefulness. Christopher Parker

Please disregard my last - my mail client managed to hiccup and somehow attach that reply to not only the wrong thread, but the wrong list. Apologies for the confusion. Chuck On Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 11:17 PM Chuck Sanders <nathhad(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: