Op 30 jan. 2021 om 13:33 heeft JJJ Wegdam <jwegdam(a)me.com&gt; 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: 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.

> 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` 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.

> 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` 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".