1:28 p.m.
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
1:58 p.m.
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
2:39 p.m.
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@...
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/railway:train_...
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
11:44 a.m.
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
1:10 p.m.
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.
7:33 p.m.
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_protecti...,
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(a)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(a)openrailwaymap.org
To unsubscribe send an email toopenrailwaymap-leave(a)openrailwaymap.org
Archived version of this
message:https://lists.openrailwaymap.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/openrai...
Archive of this
list:https://lists.openrailwaymap.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/openrailwa...
11:07 p.m.
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.
Den ons 19 apr. 2023 kl 19:47 skrev Ross Gammon <ross(a)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_protecti...,
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(a)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(a)openrailwaymap.org
To unsubscribe send an email to openrailwaymap-leave(a)openrailwaymap.org
Archived version of this message:
https://lists.openrailwaymap.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/openrailwaymap@...
Archive of this list:
https://lists.openrailwaymap.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/openrailwaymap@...
Openrailwaymap mailing list -- openrailwaymap(a)openrailwaymap.org
To unsubscribe send an email to openrailwaymap-leave(a)openrailwaymap.org
Archived version of this message:
https://lists.openrailwaymap.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/openrailwaymap@...
Archive of this list:
https://lists.openrailwaymap.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/openrailwaymap@...
12:01 p.m.
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.
7:17 p.m.
Den tors 20 apr. 2023 kl 12:04 skrev <1993matiaslq(a)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.
9:58 a.m.
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.
10 a.m.
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.
8:46 a.m.
(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(a)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(a)openrailwaymap.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to openrailwaymap-leave(a)openrailwaymap.org
> Archived version of this message:
>
https://lists.openrailwaymap.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/openrailwaymap@...
> Archive of this list:
>
https://lists.openrailwaymap.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/openrailwaymap@...
8:47 p.m.
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
6:27 p.m.
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_r...
152
days inactive
374
days old
openrailwaymap@openrailwaymap.org
13 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
1993matiaslq＠gmail.com
-
Björn Mahrt
-
mail＠sijmenapers.nl
-
Patrik Ekengren
-
Ross Gammon
-
tomasmarklund75＠gmail.com