Hello,
I have started to improve the data on the Danish railway network. Despite some initial troubles and mistakes, I have begun to do some good progress. Unfortunately, I have reached an issue with train protection systems. It is defined that the Danish train protection system should be tagged as ZUB123 (the technical name), not ATC (the common name). What confuses me is that Sweden tags their system ATC (the common name) rather than Ebicab700 (the technical name). Why is there this inconsistency? And why has it not been resolved since the last discussion about it two years ago? Is there anything I can do to help the change, or is it a lost cause now?
Also, where is the best place to talk about OpenRailwayMap? The OpenStreetMap Discord channel for OpenRailwayMap is not that active, mailing lists here seem dead, what else...?
Thanks, Matias
I was not involved in the discussion 2 years ago, but here is my view of the matter.
The swedish SYSTEM is called ATC. There are two manufacturers who deliver the onboard equipment for the locomotives. Ebicab (by Bombardier) is one, Ansaldo L10000 (by Ansaldo) is the other.
The two manufacturers have created their products to the same specification, so both of them can do the same job on a swedish railway.
But the name of the SYSTEM is ATC. Not Ebicab. Not Ansaldo L10000. The name of the onboard equipment has nothing to do with the tagging of the railway itself.
Ok, I agree that the name "ATC" is a bit ambiguous, but that is a mistake done in the late 70s when the system was invented. And since the name stuck, that's what the railways are tagged with :-)
/Tomas
Well, that opens up another can of worms. Why should it be called Ebicab 700 in Bulgaria, when it's called ATC in Sweden? It's the same system, basically. What about other countries calling their systems ATC? Accoridng to wiki that's (at least) Denmark, Brazil, South Korea, Japan, Australia (Queensland), United Kingdom, and Canada (around Toronto) - and possibly Egypt. It is especially confusing when the tagging guidelines include railway:ebicab=700 (and =900) as a tagging option, referring to Wikipedia as the source of whether a country uses Ebicab or not. Spoiler alert: Sweden and Norway are listed as using Ebicab 700!
I am all for changing ATC to something else, because it is incredibly ambiguous. My preference would be Ebicab 700 or similar, but ATC-SE could also be an option. Simply 'ATC' is too vague.
The discussions never reached a conclusion: https://lists.openrailwaymap.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/openrailwaymap@ope... https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/railway:train_pro...
A Swedish discussion didn't either (they did not agree to call it ATC or Ebicab). One user mentioned the example that you call all Lego-compatible building blocks "Lego-bricks" whether they are manufactured by Lego or not. That is a valid point regarcing Ebicab vs. ATC, but to which extent the Lego-analogy applies to this situation I am not sure. https://forum.sparvagssallskapet.se/viewtopic.php?t=42554
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.
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.
*) Of course, someone has heard of Ebicab, but not the majority of people interested in railways.
Why should it be called Ebicab i Bulgaria? Good question. I have no idea. Perhaps it is actually called "Ebicab" there? I don't know.
/Tomas
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.
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_..., 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
On 19.04.2023 13.10, 1993matiaslq@gmail.com wrote:
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 toopenrailwaymap-leave@openrailwaymap.org Archived version of this message:https://lists.openrailwaymap.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/openrailwaymap@ope... Archive of this list:https://lists.openrailwaymap.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/openrailwaymap@ope...
Perhaps this list can be useful in order to determine what name to use: https://www.era.europa.eu/system/files/2022-11/List%20of%20CCS%20Class%20B%2...
According to that list, Sweden is using ATC-2 and ATC-R. While Bulgaria and Portugal are using Ebicab 700:BU and Ebicab 700:PT. Norway is said to be using ATC-2, which is compatible with the Swedish ATC-2. But in Norway, there are some lines that are equipped with the full version, FATC (which I think is the same as the normal implementation of ATC-2 in Sweden), and some lines that only have a partial implementation, DATC. There seems to be some similarities between the Swedish and the Norwegian systems ATC and the Ebicab 700 systems in Portugal and Bulgaria. But I don't think these are compatible.
Den ons 19 apr. 2023 kl 19:47 skrev Ross Gammon ross@the-gammons.net:
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_..., 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 On 19.04.2023 13.10, 1993matiaslq@gmail.com wrote:
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@ope... Archive of this list: https://lists.openrailwaymap.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/openrailwaymap@ope...
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@ope... Archive of this list: https://lists.openrailwaymap.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/openrailwaymap@ope...
Patrik Ekengren wrote:
Perhaps this list can be useful in order to determine what name to use: https://www.era.europa.eu/system/files/2022-11/List%20of%20CCS%20Class%20...
According to that list, Sweden is using ATC-2 and ATC-R. While Bulgaria and Portugal are using Ebicab 700:BU and Ebicab 700:PT. Norway is said to be using ATC-2, which is compatible with the Swedish ATC-2. But in Norway, there are some lines that are equipped with the full version, FATC (which I think is the same as the normal implementation of ATC-2 in Sweden), and some lines that only have a partial implementation, DATC. There seems to be some similarities between the Swedish and the Norwegian systems ATC and the Ebicab 700 systems in Portugal and Bulgaria. But I don't think these are compatible.
Yes, that is a very good list. But the list also says the systems are formely known as Ebicab 700.
The two systems are in theory compatible - how much they really are I don't know. In addition, Norway has F-ATC and D-ATC for different levels of implementation. That should be differentiated on the map, I think. Just like ETCS L1 and L2 are both ETCS, but different levels of implementation. The same with Denmark, which has full ATC on mainlines, but some branch lines have ATC-Togstop which only stops a train after passing a red light (and no other protection whatsoever unlike full ATC). That should also be mapped differently on the map (in my opinion), as despite being the same hardware it is differentiated in all documentation.
The underlying issue here is that rendering the safety system as "ATC" on the map is ambiguous for most people. ATC is not only the common name of the national system in several countries, it could also be interpreted as an umbrella term for train protection systems.
In my opinion the current rendering cannot stay. It should be changed to (my preference) Ebicab 700, or alternatively ATC-2 Sweden or similar. This to avoid any confusion with other systems with similar names.
- - -
Ross G. wrote (summary) "why not render all those systems as ATC despite different technical names?" to which I'd like to respond that it would only add to the confusion that several countries use ATC, but the systems are not at all compatible. Especially seeing as Denmark and Sweden share a rail connection.
Den tors 20 apr. 2023 kl 12:04 skrev 1993matiaslq@gmail.com:
Yes, that is a very good list. But the list also says the systems are formely known as Ebicab 700
Not exactly. It says it was formerly referred as "EBICAB 700". Earlier versions of the document have Ebicab 700 for Sweden and Norway. Which now has been changed to ATC (version 2/R) in the current version.
The underlying issue here is that rendering the safety system as "ATC" on the map is ambiguous for most people. ATC is not only the common name of the national system in several countries, it could also be interpreted as an umbrella term for train protection systems.
In my opinion the current rendering cannot stay. It should be changed to (my preference) Ebicab 700, or alternatively ATC-2 Sweden or similar. This to avoid any confusion with other systems with similar names.
Adding "Sweden" is somewhat confusing, since it is also used in Norway. Perhaps ATC-2/Ebicab 700 would be a better option, and use the same rendering for Sweden, Norway, Bulgaria and Portugal. At least now, the same colour is used in Portugal, Sweden and Norway.
Patrik Ekengren wrote:
The underlying issue here is that rendering the safety system as "ATC" on the map is ambiguous for most people. ATC is not only the common name of the national system in several countries, it could also be interpreted as an umbrella term for train protection systems.
In my opinion the current rendering cannot stay. It should be changed to (my preference) Ebicab 700, or alternatively ATC-2 Sweden or similar. This to avoid any confusion with other systems with similar names.
Adding "Sweden" is somewhat confusing, since it is also used in Norway. Perhaps ATC-2/Ebicab 700 would be a better option, and use the same rendering for Sweden, Norway, Bulgaria and Portugal. At least now, the same colour is used in Portugal, Sweden and Norway.
"ATC-2/Ebicab 700" really looks like a compromise solution. It's not elegant, even though it does solve the issue. But it doesn't seem like there are other, more elegant solutions here (unless simply Ebicab 700 is used, but that's twisting facts a bit, apparently).
There is also still the question about the Norwegian systems FATC and DATC. While FATC is still ATC-2/Ebicab 700, DATC is different in some way. I have not found out exactly what the *technical* difference is, whether any ATC-2/Ebicab 700 equipped train would understand DATC telegrams or not. Would it make sense to map it as a separate safety system? (In my opinion yes, as it is differentiated in the rules).
Have you edited Swedish railway lines to include railway:atc=yes ? I would like more than two opinions on this - especially if we want to reach an agreement on how to change the tag. Otherwise they could just revert the changes.
Patrik Ekengren wrote:
The underlying issue here is that rendering the safety system as "ATC" on the map is ambiguous for most people. ATC is not only the common name of the national system in several countries, it could also be interpreted as an umbrella term for train protection systems.
In my opinion the current rendering cannot stay. It should be changed to (my preference) Ebicab 700, or alternatively ATC-2 Sweden or similar. This to avoid any confusion with other systems with similar names.
Adding "Sweden" is somewhat confusing, since it is also used in Norway. Perhaps ATC-2/Ebicab 700 would be a better option, and use the same rendering for Sweden, Norway, Bulgaria and Portugal. At least now, the same colour is used in Portugal, Sweden and Norway.
"ATC-2/Ebicab 700" really looks like a compromise solution. It's not elegant, even though it does solve the issue. But it doesn't seem like there are other, more elegant solutions here (unless simply Ebicab 700 is used, but that's twisting facts a bit, apparently).
There is also still the question about the Norwegian systems FATC and DATC. While FATC is still ATC-2/Ebicab 700, DATC is different in some way. I have not found out exactly what the *technical* difference is, whether any ATC-2/Ebicab 700 equipped train would understand DATC telegrams or not. Would it make sense to map it as a separate safety system? (In my opinion yes, as it is differentiated in the rules).
Have you edited Swedish railway lines to include railway:atc=yes ? I would like more than two opinions on this - especially if we want to reach an agreement on how to change the tag. Otherwise they could just revert the changes.
(resend due to technical difficulties)
Hello,
I just wanted to ask about the current state of the proposal in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Railway:train_protection . It very much seems that (as many additional train protection systems are added to openrailwaymap) the issue is quite relevant and it would be very helpful to be a step further. What do you think? How to push it a bit more?
Or differently asked: What is missing to step further?
Best regards
Björn
Am 24.04.23 um 10:00 schrieb 1993matiaslq@gmail.com:
Patrik Ekengren wrote:
The underlying issue here is that rendering the safety system as "ATC" on the map is ambiguous for most people. ATC is not only the common name of the national system in several countries, it could also be interpreted as an umbrella term for train protection systems.
In my opinion the current rendering cannot stay. It should be changed to (my preference) Ebicab 700, or alternatively ATC-2 Sweden or similar. This to avoid any confusion with other systems with similar names.
Adding "Sweden" is somewhat confusing, since it is also used in Norway. Perhaps ATC-2/Ebicab 700 would be a better option, and use the same rendering for Sweden, Norway, Bulgaria and Portugal. At least now, the same colour is used in Portugal, Sweden and Norway.
"ATC-2/Ebicab 700" really looks like a compromise solution. It's not elegant, even though it does solve the issue. But it doesn't seem like there are other, more elegant solutions here (unless simply Ebicab 700 is used, but that's twisting facts a bit, apparently).
There is also still the question about the Norwegian systems FATC and DATC. While FATC is still ATC-2/Ebicab 700, DATC is different in some way. I have not found out exactly what the *technical* difference is, whether any ATC-2/Ebicab 700 equipped train would understand DATC telegrams or not. Would it make sense to map it as a separate safety system? (In my opinion yes, as it is differentiated in the rules).
Have you edited Swedish railway lines to include railway:atc=yes ? I would like more than two opinions on this - especially if we want to reach an agreement on how to change the tag. Otherwise they could just revert the changes. 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@ope... Archive of this list: https://lists.openrailwaymap.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/openrailwaymap@ope...
Björn Mahrt wrote:
(resend due to technical difficulties)
Hello,
I just wanted to ask about the current state of the proposal in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Railway:train_protection . It very much seems that (as many additional train protection systems are added to openrailwaymap) the issue is quite relevant and it would be very helpful to be a step further. What do you think? How to push it a bit more?
Or differently asked: What is missing to step further?
Best regards
Björn
Hello Björn,
As far as I understand, all it needs is a consensus on a change. Users must agree on a new standard, probably by voting on a talk page on the wiki (but don't hang me up on that).
-Matias
FYI: Here is s latest list.of the ERA Class B signalling system names:
https://www.era.europa.eu/system/files/2022-11/list_harmonised_national_rest...
openrailwaymap@openrailwaymap.org
-
1993matiaslq＠gmail.com -
Björn Mahrt -
mail＠sijmenapers.nl -
Patrik Ekengren -
Ross Gammon -
tomasmarklund75＠gmail.com