This tagging discussion is relevant for PR703 so I added a copy of this email there.
Dear community,
EBICAB is a trademark for on-board equipment, from a specific supplier (Bombardier). The entire train protection system contains some other things [1]. The entire system is called ATC in Norway and Sweden, while Portugal calls the exact same system CONVEL. To add more confusion: Denmark calls [its own system](https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ZUB_123) ATC [2], while it is incompatible with the Norse/Swedish/Portuguese system.
Also the current situation in OSM is different than you currently envision (with adding the `railway:ebicab=700` tag): in the past I already added `railway:atc=yes` tags to relevant tracks in both Portugal and Norway with the same purpose. You also envision the `railway:ebicab=900` tag (probably for Finland) while Finland uses the `railway:jkv=yes` tag with the same purpose. Denmark is a bit of a blank slate, because Denmark doesn't have train protection tags yet.
OpenRailwayMap has 2 options:
1. Render compatible systems consequences: a) we proceed with this PR as is b) we have to retag Portugal, Sweden, Norway and Finland (I'm willing to help) c) we should create an additional PR to also render `railway:zub=123` d) Denmark should be tagged with `railway:zub=123` 2. Render local names consequences: a) this PR should change to `railway:convel=yes` b) we should retag portugal from `railway:ebicab=700`/`railway:atc=yes` to `railway:convel=yes` c) we need an additional PR to render `railway:atc=yes` c) Denmark should be tagged with `railway:atc=yes`
I am in favor of option 1, because my opinion is that the goal of ORM signalling layer should be to show compatibility.
Best regards, JJJWegdam
[1] Overview of train protection systems in PT, DK, NO, SE, FI as far as I currently understand them
[2] Danish border, seen from Germany. Note the start-of-ATC signs.
Dear community,
As far as I can see, there are no objections to my proposal. If that remains the case until Wednesday 10th of February, I’ll update the tagging scheme and start executing the ToDo’s from option 1.
Best regards, JJJWegdam
Op 30 jan. 2021 om 13:33 heeft JJJ Wegdam jwegdam@me.com het volgende geschreven:
This tagging discussion is relevant for PR703 so I added a copy of this email there.
Dear community,
EBICAB is a trademark for on-board equipment, from a specific supplier (Bombardier). The entire train protection system contains some other things [1]. The entire system is called ATC in Norway and Sweden, while Portugal calls the exact same system CONVEL. To add more confusion: Denmark calls [its own system](https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ZUB_123) ATC [2], while it is incompatible with the Norse/Swedish/Portuguese system.
Also the current situation in OSM is different than you currently envision (with adding the `railway:ebicab=700` tag): in the past I already added `railway:atc=yes` tags to relevant tracks in both Portugal and Norway with the same purpose. You also envision the `railway:ebicab=900` tag (probably for Finland) while Finland uses the `railway:jkv=yes` tag with the same purpose. Denmark is a bit of a blank slate, because Denmark doesn't have train protection tags yet.
OpenRailwayMap has 2 options:
- Render compatible systems consequences:
a) we proceed with this PR as is b) we have to retag Portugal, Sweden, Norway and Finland (I'm willing to help) c) we should create an additional PR to also render `railway:zub=123` d) Denmark should be tagged with `railway:zub=123` 2. Render local names consequences: a) this PR should change to `railway:convel=yes` b) we should retag portugal from `railway:ebicab=700`/`railway:atc=yes` to `railway:convel=yes` c) we need an additional PR to render `railway:atc=yes` c) Denmark should be tagged with `railway:atc=yes`
I am in favor of option 1, because my opinion is that the goal of ORM signalling layer should be to show compatibility.
Best regards, JJJWegdam
[1] Overview of train protection systems in PT, DK, NO, SE, FI as far as I currently understand them
[2] Danish border, seen from Germany. Note the start-of-ATC signs.
- Render compatible systems consequences:
a) we proceed with this PR as is b) we have to retag Portugal, Sweden, Norway and Finland (I'm willing to help) c) we should create an additional PR to also render `railway:zub=123` d) Denmark should be tagged with `railway:zub=123`
If we are going to retag things, I still think that defining a railway:train_protection=* system is much less work. Think about your PRs: how many railway:foobar=no tags do you want to get a "proper" selector for "no system".
We should leave the already established systems as they are for now, to avoid a mass conversion, and only use this for "new" systems for the moment.
I also think we should consider adding country prefixes for these tagging systems, it's likely that common names like "ATP" or something like that may show up more than once on the planet, so we would get DE:PZB.
And when we are thinking about, lets just think one step ahead: how do we want to tag different levels or versions of the same system, especially if they may be installed at the same time?
So, at the end, I think we should end up with something like:
railway:train_protection=DE:PZB;DE:LZB;ETCS:2.3
And for the systems from the previous mail that would be something like:
NO:ATC, SE:ATC, PT:CONVEL, FI:JKV
At the end it should probably be DK:ATC instead of DK:ZUB123 as we usually use the local names in OSM.
Hi,
I vote we merge the PR, and continue continue tagging with the train protection "system vendor name". It is interesting to see on the map that the EBICAB family of ATP products is used in Portugal, Sweden, Norway & Finland.
On 07/02/2021 12:40, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
- Render compatible systems consequences:
a) we proceed with this PR as is b) we have to retag Portugal, Sweden, Norway and Finland (I'm willing to help) c) we should create an additional PR to also render `railway:zub=123` d) Denmark should be tagged with `railway:zub=123`
If we are going to retag things, I still think that defining a railway:train_protection=* system is much less work. Think about your PRs: how many railway:foobar=no tags do you want to get a "proper" selector for "no system".
We should leave the already established systems as they are for now, to avoid a mass conversion, and only use this for "new" systems for the moment.
I also think we should consider adding country prefixes for these tagging systems, it's likely that common names like "ATP" or something like that may show up more than once on the planet, so we would get DE:PZB.
And when we are thinking about, lets just think one step ahead: how do we want to tag different levels or versions of the same system, especially if they may be installed at the same time?
So, at the end, I think we should end up with something like:
railway:train_protection=DE:PZB;DE:LZB;ETCS:2.3
And for the systems from the previous mail that would be something like:
NO:ATC, SE:ATC, PT:CONVEL, FI:JKV
At the end it should probably be DK:ATC instead of DK:ZUB123 as we usually use the local names in OSM.
I think we should avoid using common "system acronyms" like ATC. The use of these terms has evolved over time. One recognised group of terminology is Automatic Train Control (ATC) which is a system with the following subsystems: Automatic Train Supervision (ATS) - the management layer Automatic Train Operation (ATO) - replaces a human driver Automatic Train Protection (ATP) - stops the train if it exceeds its authority
Using a "country" qualifier for the "local name" of the system helps, but I don't think it resolves all cases.
In the Danish case, what is really an ATP system (Siemens ZUB123) is also well known as ATC on Banedanmark lines. But there is also the Copenhagen Metro which has an ATC system with ATO & ATP components from what is now Hitachi, that are MicroLok products. This is a completely different ATC system.
I wonder if it would be possible to tag with both the equipment name, and the local name. But then what would be rendered?
Would it also be useful to have an additional tag "Grade of Automation" so we capture whether there is ATO, DTO, UTO etc? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_train_operation
Regards,
Ross
Am Sonntag, 7. Februar 2021, 13:38:47 CET schrieb Ross Gammon:
Hi,
I vote we merge the PR, and continue continue tagging with the train protection "system vendor name". It is interesting to see on the map that the EBICAB family of ATP products is used in Portugal, Sweden, Norway & Finland.
The map is entirely independent: we could easily render all of them the same even if they are differently tagged.
Eike
Am Sonntag, 7. Februar 2021, 12:40:43 CET schrieb Rolf Eike Beer:
Render compatible systems
consequences:
a) we proceed with this PR as is b) we have to retag Portugal, Sweden, Norway and Finland (I'm willing to help) c) we should create an additional PR to also render `railway:zub=123` d) Denmark should be tagged with `railway:zub=123`
If we are going to retag things, I still think that defining a railway:train_protection=* system is much less work. Think about your PRs: how many railway:foobar=no tags do you want to get a "proper" selector for "no system".
I will do a tagging proposal in the wiki in the next days, which should help documenting that if we agree on that.
Am Donnerstag, 11. Februar 2021, 16:51:21 CEST schrieb Rolf Eike Beer:
Am Sonntag, 7. Februar 2021, 12:40:43 CET schrieb Rolf Eike Beer:
Render compatible systems
consequences:
a) we proceed with this PR as is b) we have to retag Portugal, Sweden, Norway and Finland (I'm willing to help) c) we should create an additional PR to also render `railway:zub=123` d) Denmark should be tagged with `railway:zub=123`
If we are going to retag things, I still think that defining a railway:train_protection=* system is much less work. Think about your PRs: how many railway:foobar=no tags do you want to get a "proper" selector for "no system".
I will do a tagging proposal in the wiki in the next days, which should help documenting that if we agree on that.
Here we go:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/railway:train_protecti...
Please use the discussion page for proposed changes, and only directly edit the main page for obvious things like layout errors and typos.
Eike
Looks great Eike! Thanks for helping us forward.
Best regards, JJJWegdam
Op 10 apr. 2021 om 18:35 heeft Rolf Eike Beer eike@sf-mail.de het volgende geschreven:
Am Donnerstag, 11. Februar 2021, 16:51:21 CEST schrieb Rolf Eike Beer:
Am Sonntag, 7. Februar 2021, 12:40:43 CET schrieb Rolf Eike Beer:
Render compatible systems
consequences:
a) we proceed with this PR as is b) we have to retag Portugal, Sweden, Norway and Finland (I'm willing to help) c) we should create an additional PR to also render `railway:zub=123` d) Denmark should be tagged with `railway:zub=123`
If we are going to retag things, I still think that defining a railway:train_protection=* system is much less work. Think about your PRs: how many railway:foobar=no tags do you want to get a "proper" selector for "no system".
I will do a tagging proposal in the wiki in the next days, which should help documenting that if we agree on that.
Here we go:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/railway:train_protecti...
Please use the discussion page for proposed changes, and only directly edit the main page for obvious things like layout errors and typos.
Eike
openrailwaymap@openrailwaymap.org
-
Jeroen Wegdam -
JJJ Wegdam
-
Rolf Eike Beer -
Ross Gammon