with the "actively set railway:train_protection=no", is it possible to have this as a default rather than requiring it to be actively set to "no" - ie, assume no train protection unless someone has explicitly set it? In the absence of a known system, assuming there isn't one is possibly better than assuming that there is .....
Andy On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 at 12:19, Rainer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Maarten, > > I agree that the tags railway:pzb, railway:etcs etc. are chosen > awkwardly. The tag should express that these are train control systems; > now with railway:pzb=* you have to know that pzb is a train control > system. If somewhere in the world the system xyz is added, it is not > recognisable from the tag as train protection. > Therefore I suggest to change railway:pzb|etcs|lzb|atc|...=yes|no into > railway:train_protection:pzb|etcs|lzb|atc|...=yes|no . This would > provide more clarity and make it possible to actively set a > railway:train_protection=no to express that no train protection system > exists and to distinguish it from the lack of information. > > Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) > > - Rainer > > Am 31.05.20 um 23:31 schrieb Maarten Deen: > > On 2020-05-31 21:04, JJJ Wegdam via Openrailwaymap wrote: > >> Dear ORM community, > >> > >> As far as I know, the signalling layer renders train protection > >> absence as soon as a way contains railway:pzb=no and railway:lzb=no. I > >> implemented this throughout over 10 European countries. A user from > >> Belgium is now complaining about this. He argues that Belgium doesn't > >> have the PZB nor the LZB system anywhere in the country and that thus > >> these tags should not be in the country. Could you please provide your > >> thoughts on this complaint? You can contribute to the discussion at > >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85628039#map=13/50.8173/4.3336 > >> or reply to this email. > > > > I agree completely that you should not tag railway:pzb=no or > > railway:lzb=no in countries where there is no PZB or LZB. There is no > > default saying that having no train protection tags means it has PZB > > or LZB. > > Even in countries using PZB or LZB it should be considered superfluous > > to tag this since the default is no. > > Also tags like railway:etcs=no and railway:tbl=no that are still on > > some ways there I would like to disencourage very much. The default is > > no, so you don't have to tag that it is not there. > > > > It I look at the openrailwaymap signalling layer it says "no > > information" or "no protection" or PZB/ATB/LZB/ETCS. > > I assume that the renderer knows which tags are for train protection > > (a bad scheme IMHO, see 1) below) and only renders lines without any > > of those systems as "no information" and renders lines without > > PZB/ATB/LZB/ETCS as "no protection". If that is so then the solution > > is easy: change the legend tag "no protection" to "other train > > protection". And "no information" should be "no protection" if there > > is no positive tag saying there is train protection. Sure, you will > > have a lot of false negatives, but people will notice and will amend > > the tags. > > > > I wholeheartedly agree with Eimai. Do not go out and tag all the > > railway lines in the world with railway:pzb=no and/or railway:lzb=no > > just to get that map looking like you want to. He is right, this is > > tagging for the renderer. > > I see an area around Laon as well: railway:etcs=no, railway:kvb=no, > > railway:lzb=no, railway:pzb=no. Come one. There are 60 other train > > protection tags, add them as well, or why not? > > > > 1) It should be more like railway:train_protection:pzb=yes/no. Why is > > railway:pzb a train protection tag and railway:gnt not. This makes > > automation around these tags very difficult. When you add a new train > > protection tag, the program needs to know about it. If you use > > railway:train_protection:xyz, then everything starting with > > railway:train_protection: is about train protection, and if you don't > > recognize the type, then you know it is "other" for your purposes. If > > you add railway:xyz as a new train protection tag, you have to > > reprogram everything that is working with these tags. > > > > Maarten >
