Could I please get some examples of this on OSM? links would be great. Thanks, Nat email: [email protected]
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 8:42 AM Michael Kümmling <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 22.01.21 um 13:46 schrieb Rolf Eike Beer: > > Am Dienstag, 19. Januar 2021, 22:49:52 CET schrieb JJJ Wegdam via > > Openrailwaymap: > >> The Dutch national law > >> (https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0017707/2020-04-01 appendix 2, chapter > 13) > >> allows two types of ETCS stop marker signs under the same signal > reference > >> number: > >> > >> This makes tagging a bit harder than usual. Normally we would just say: > >> railway:signal:train_protection = nl:227b > >> > >> Because there are two types of signs I propose the tags: > >> > >> railway:signal:train_protection = nl:227b_triangle > >> railway:signal:train_protection = nl:227b_arrow > >> > >> In case we agree about this, I will proceed with changing the wiki and > my > >> (currently 'paused') pull request. > > > > I think this needs a bit more context. First, this is the PR he is > talking > > about: https://github.com/OpenRailwayMap/OpenRailwayMap/pull/701 > > > > It started with an innocent "let's add the ETCS stop marker rendering as > used > > in NL". But then I came up with this: > > > >> According to the German Wikipedia this is an older version of the signal > >> which has been replaced in newer versions of the ETCS standard because > it > >> could be confused with a France signal of different meaning. > > > > It looks like both are permitted in NL at the moment and this will not > change > > shortly: > > > >> The Netherlands has two ETCS level 2 trajectories (railway lines with > ETCS > >> block markers). The high speed line between Amsterdam and Antwerp has > (both > >> on Dutch and Belgian soil) the triangle-shaped signs. The cargo line > from > >> Rotterdam to the Ruhrgebiet area has arrow-shaped signs. There are no > plans > >> to change the triangle-shaped block marker boards on the high speed > line. > > > >> My current solution is to use > >> "railway:signal:train_protection"="DE-ESO:ne14"on the Germany-bound > line and > >> "railway:signal:train_protection"="NL:227b" on the Belgium-bound line. > > > > And that is the point where I started to disagree: > > > >> Any tagging of DE-ESO signals on a railway line in the Netherlands is > plain > >> wrong, this is just "tagging for the renderer". > > > > So, the question is, what are we doing now. In my eyes the whole > situation is > > very similar to what we have regarding H/V light signals in Germany, > where > > there are at least 3 types all tagged the same as they have the same > meaning, > > they just differ in how they are built. > > > > I would think adding another subtag like ":version", ":generation", > ":shape" > > or something for all of these cases, and then do something like > > > > railway:signal:train_protection = nl:227b > > railway:signal:train_protection:shape = triangle > > > > Shouldn't this be NL instead? > > > > railway:signal:main = DE-ESO:hp > > railway:signal:main:form = light > > railway:signal:main:shape = compact > > > > The same also applies for the newer signals where entirely different > shapes > > are in use if mounted inside a tunnel or beneath a platform roof: > > > > railway:signal:main = DE-ESO:ks > > railway:signal:main:shape = tunnel > > > > The advantage is that noone has to do case switching if the actual form > of the > > signal isn't relevant, e.g. when doing some sort of routing, you only > need to > > know there _is_ a signal. Renderers then can look at the subtags and > decide to > > use whatever default fits best if it is not present. > I support your proposal. If a signal has different variants, which share > the same number, name and meaning, it should have one value in OSM/ORM > as well. > > > Regards, > Micha >
