8:53 p.m.
Hello!
I'm a railway electrification engineer working in the UK, and a small group of us are
planning to produce an electrification-focused map of the UK rail network using OSM data.
We are aware of your ongoing project, and it is clear from chat on your github that you
have plans to add an electrification view at some point. I wanted to introduce us and let
you know that we exist; and to let you know that we are not intending to compete with your
much bigger project, but rather produce something fairly quickly to inform the ongoing
debate about decarbonisation and further electrification in the UK.
We are also thinking about how we represent a couple of electrification features that we
have in the UK that the existing tag scheme does not support, and wondered if we could
collaborate on that aspect.
Garry Keenor
5:34 p.m.
Hi, a follow up to this.
Specifically, in the UK we have a significant network of 4th rail electrification in
London... around 250 route miles. At the moment this is tagged as electrified=rail, so
there is no way of differentiating it from 3rd rail (which we also have a lot of, in the
same area). The system is fundamentally different from 3rd rail, which uses the running
rails asthe return path rather than a dedicated return rail.
As far as I can establish, the only use of this system outside the UK is in Milan, but
there may be others we're not aware of?
We would therefore like to propose the use of electrified=4th_rail for these systems. We
would obviously like to get views and build consensus before embarking on any tagging
changes.
8:33 a.m.
On 2020-06-05 17:34, garry.keenor(a)gmail.com wrote:
Hi, a follow up to this.
Specifically, in the UK we have a significant network of 4th rail
electrification in London... around 250 route miles. At the moment
this is tagged as electrified=rail, so there is no way of
differentiating it from 3rd rail (which we also have a lot of, in the
same area). The system is fundamentally different from 3rd rail, which
uses the running rails asthe return path rather than a dedicated
return rail.
As far as I can establish, the only use of this system outside the UK
is in Milan, but there may be others we're not aware of?
We would therefore like to propose the use of electrified=4th_rail for
these systems. We would obviously like to get views and build
consensus before embarking on any tagging changes.
I think that is a good addition. And tag 3rd rail systems as
electrified=3rd_rail as well.
There is also electrified:rail that specifies the type of contact (top,
bottom, side). Obvioudly you will use
electrified:4th_rail=top/bottom/side for 4th rail systems.
Regards,
Maarten
10:39 a.m.
Dear Garry,
Thank you for your emails. Great to hear that more and more countries are benefiting from
the ORM project.
I agree with the plan for a ‘4th_rail’ tag and agree with Maarten that we should change
the ‘rail’ tag to ‘3rd_rail’. If I remember correctly, in the past it was already possible
to view the electrification map beta on a website from Michael (CC). Moreover, you can
download the JOSM editor and try out the electrification style there; this allows you to
easily add data while seeing the result at the same time. If you need any help with
setting that up, feel free to send me an email.
Best regards,
Jeroen Wegdam
> Op 6 jun. 2020 om 08:35 heeft Maarten Deen <mdeen(a)xs4all.nl> het volgende
geschreven:
>
> On 2020-06-05 17:34, garry.keenor(a)gmail.com wrote:
>> Hi, a follow up to this.
>> Specifically, in the UK we have a significant network of 4th rail
>> electrification in London... around 250 route miles. At the moment
>> this is tagged as electrified=rail, so there is no way of
>> differentiating it from 3rd rail (which we also have a lot of, in the
>> same area). The system is fundamentally different from 3rd rail, which
>> uses the running rails asthe return path rather than a dedicated
>> return rail.
>> As far as I can establish, the only use of this system outside the UK
>> is in Milan, but there may be others we're not aware of?
>> We would therefore like to propose the use of electrified=4th_rail for
>> these systems. We would obviously like to get views and build
>> consensus before embarking on any tagging changes.
>
> I think that is a good addition. And tag 3rd rail systems as electrified=3rd_rail as
well.
> There is also electrified:rail that specifies the type of contact (top, bottom,
side). Obvioudly you will use electrified:4th_rail=top/bottom/side for 4th rail systems.
>
> Regards,
> Maarten
12:18 p.m.
Jeroen, Maarten,
Thank you for your support to the idea. We had discussed electrified=3rd_rail, and the
only thing putting us off was the potential to upset existing taggers and 3rd rail lines
around the world who would then have a legacy tag. But if that can be overcome, then yes
it would be a very clean approach.
As the next step, should I aedit the tage scheme wiki? I'd suggest the following
definitions:
electrified=3rd_rail: 3rd contact rail / Used for tracks electrified by a 3rd rail system,
with one additional rail on insulators, using shoe pickup by the train, and traction
current return via the running rail(s)
electrified=4th_rail: 4th contact rail / Used for tracks electrified by a 4th rail system,
with two additional rails on insulators and two shoe pickup by the train, and traction
current returning via one of the insulated rails
1:34 p.m.
On 2020-06-06 12:18, garry.keenor(a)gmail.com wrote:
As the next step, should I aedit the tage scheme wiki? I'd
suggest the
following definitions:
electrified=3rd_rail: 3rd contact rail / Used for tracks electrified
by a 3rd rail system, with one additional rail on insulators, using
shoe pickup by the train, and traction current return via the running
rail(s)
electrified=4th_rail: 4th contact rail / Used for tracks electrified
by a 4th rail system, with two additional rails on insulators and two
shoe pickup by the train, and traction current returning via one of
the insulated rails
Yes, that is a good idea.
I would also suggest to put something like electrified=rail
deprecated/discouraged: try to use 3rd_rail or 4th_rail as much as
possible.
Regards,
Maarten
4:40 p.m.
Thanks Maarten - I've done that at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging. Would appreciate someone
checking it for me.
11:01 p.m.
Hi Jeroen,
Am 06/06/2020 um 10.39 schrieb Jeroen Wegdam via Openrailwaymap:
Thank you for your emails. Great to hear that more and more countries
are benefiting from the ORM project.
I agree with the plan for a ‘4th_rail’ tag and agree with Maarten that we should change
the ‘rail’ tag to ‘3rd_rail’. If I remember correctly, in the past it was already possible
to view the electrification map beta on a website from Michael (CC).
That was the vector tile based website which stop working when I
migrated to the new rendering stack (and it will not work in future).
The preview of the Mapnik port of the electrification map style is
available at
https://tiles.openrailwaymap.org/#osm.org/10/53.500000/9.950000&overl...
Best regards
Michael
1:53 p.m.
Jeroen, Maarten,
We have now raised a formal change request through the OSM process. Would be grateful for
your support to this:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-June/053255.html
11:03 p.m.
Hi Garry,
Am 09/06/2020 um 13.53 schrieb garry.keenor(a)gmail.com:
We have now raised a formal change request through the OSM process.
Would be grateful for your support to this:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-June/053255.html
Thank you for starting a proposal. electrified=* has been in use since
mid 2009 and is one of the basic tags for railway infrastructure. It is
included in the core presets of the major editors (not just the
third-party tagging presets OpenRailwayMap maintains for JOSM). Just
changing the wiki will unlikely convince the developers of the major
editors to update their presets. Getting a consensus using the
established proposal process is the right way to do.
Best regards
Michael
10:04 a.m.
Thanks Michael - I'm doing that, as you are aware!
All - please could you support the proposal which is up for a formal change and under
discussion at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-June/thread.html
10:35 a.m.
Hi all,
so far I see we currently have the following possible values for electrified:
electrified=contact_line
electrified=rail: any type of power rail
electrified=yes: type not specified
electrified=no
If I right understand you like to have a more detailed specification for additional power
rails. If we add "4th_rail" how do we understand "electrified=rail"?
Does it imply a 3rd rail only or all types of rail?
Additional to that I like to keep the top/bottom/side specifications for all rail power
types.
Regards, Eckhard
2:24 p.m.
Eckhard,
It is all explained in our proposal at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/3rd_and_4th_rail - electrified=rail
is retained and the definition tightened so that it explicitly means 3rd rail. This means
that almost the whole worldwide mapped network is unaffected - and the lines that are,
I'm happy to retag correctly.
And yes, we are keeping the separate top/bottom/side tag as it is currently - we will need
it for 4th rail as well!
Hope that clarifies, and hope you can support.
4:02 p.m.
Hi Garry,
did you check whether the current "electrified=rail" routes are 3rd rail
routes only? From my perspective I would like to deprecate the
"electrified=rail" tag and introduce a 3rd_rail tag even to avoid
confusions. A tag should be clear understandable. That the "rail" tag will
mean 3rd rail only may cause confusions.
Best, Eckhard
Am Mi., 24. Juni 2020 um 14:24 Uhr schrieb <garry.keenor(a)gmail.com>:
Eckhard,
It is all explained in our proposal at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/3rd_and_4th_rail -
electrified=rail is retained and the definition tightened so that it
explicitly means 3rd rail. This means that almost the whole worldwide
mapped network is unaffected - and the lines that are, I'm happy to retag
correctly.
And yes, we are keeping the separate top/bottom/side tag as it is
currently - we will need it for 4th rail as well!
Hope that clarifies, and hope you can support.
4:34 p.m.
Yes - I have established (with 95% certainty) that there are only two 4th rail networks in
the world; the London Underground network and Milan Metro line 1.
The proposal previously had electrified=rail deprecated, but a number of people commented
(rightly IMO) that this would involve a lot of unnecessary retagging. So I amended the
proposal to what we have today. The definition of electrified=rail is clearly stated in
the proposal.
4:44 p.m.
ok, makes sense, I already approved the request.
Best, Eckhard (EM311)
Am Mi., 24. Juni 2020 um 16:34 Uhr schrieb <garry.keenor(a)gmail.com>:
Yes - I have established (with 95% certainty) that there are only two
4th
rail networks in the world; the London Underground network and Milan Metro
line 1.
The proposal previously had electrified=rail deprecated, but a number of
people commented (rightly IMO) that this would involve a lot of unnecessary
retagging. So I amended the proposal to what we have today. The definition
of electrified=rail is clearly stated in the proposal.
1400
days inactive
1426
days old
openrailwaymap@openrailwaymap.org
16 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Eckhard M
-
ecki12345＠gmail.com
-
garry.keenor＠gmail.com
-
Jeroen Wegdam
-
Maarten Deen
-
Michael Reichert