Hi, What is the status of this proposal? I was pointed here after asking about how to make ATC visible as a train protection system in Sweden on openrailwaymap.org. Has anything further been made? I can see that there is a pull request (#703) still open. But has there been any work on re-tagging or proposal on new tagging scheme?
In my opinion, it would require too much work to re-tag all the tracks in Portugal, Sweden, Norway and Finland. And I cannot read from the request what the new tagging should be. I am not an expert in this area, but I think tagging Swedish railways with ebicab=700 would not be correct. There are two kinds of on-board equipment in Sweden: Bombardier (ebicos) and Ansaldo. Both equipment can be used on tracks in Sweden equipped with what is called ATC (or ATC-2). If re-tagging should be made, I like the idea by Rolf Eike Beer to make a new tag, like railway:train_protection=DE:PZB, DE:LZB, ETCS:2.3, NO:ATC, SE:ATC, PT:CONVEL, FI:JKV. But for now, I think it would be better just to add code to render railway:atc and railway:ebicab, either separately or with the same color. And later, if and when a new tagging scheme has become common practice, this rendering can be updated using the new tag. Best regards Patrik Rolf Eike Beer wrote: > > 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. Jeroen Wegdam wrote: > 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(a)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: > > > > 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.
