Re: [Talk-us] Rail tagging in US (and North America): operator=* and reporting_marks=*

[Chuck Sanders]

After a sidebar with a couple of other folks on the list a few minutes ago,
I realized I hadn't clearly wrapped up my conclusions from this part of the
discussion and what followed.  In light of the online meeting tomorrow to
discuss, I want to take a moment as suggested to clear this up, since it
was one of the main topics under discussion this past month.  In essence, I
quickly abandoned my original suggestion below of using the ref tag instead
(which already has rendering support, but has other uses in the US that are
more appropriate) for reporting marks.  Here's the brief synopsis:

End goal: In North America, the primary OpenRailwayMap rendering needs to
show the operators prepended to the route number and name, as this is the
industry standard that map users expect and require.  The most common form
is the reporting marks, an official short form.

Recommended method:  Include reporting marks in the following regional tag,
as described on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:reporting_marks

Use of the regional tag (rather than a more common tag with other possible
uses) will simplify future rendering support; because the tag will serve
this specific purpose, it will not be accidentally misused in a way that
might cause improper labelling to appear on a non-North American part of
the map.

Future steps:  Work with the rendering team to format this information for
view and prepend it to the current labels of [ref] [name].

If we can get the reporting marks populated and get rendering support even
just on the current main routes, the rendered map would actually quickly
become usable in the US, which might also encourage more new contributors
to the cleanup/detail work.  We could get most main routes tagged within a
couple of weeks by selecting using existing relations.

Thanks,
Chuck
VA, USA

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 7:21 PM Chuck Sanders  wrote:

> In the interim this week, I got the wiki page up for tag:reporting_marks,
> and started using the tag in my area as a bit of a test - we had the
> thought that if there proved to be a better tag to hold this info, since
> this is a "novel" tag, it'd be easy to query out places we'd used it and
> just switch it to the more appropriate tag.  Meanwhile, we could at least
> start entering the info we needed to eventually make the rail map show the
> information North American rail users expect.
>
> Turns out, there IS a better tag already, and it's *really* obvious, if
> you know much about European rail networks ... which I don't, on the
> whole.  The best tag to use was already in the default tag scheme, but I
> glossed over it based on its description, since nothing like it is used in
> North American rail networks.
>
> Long story short, in NA rail networks, we should be storing the reporting
> marks in the ref=* tag on the way, and in a "pretty" way, as this tag is
> directly rendered as part of the label.
>
> I missed this, because the description of that tag in the
> OpenRailwayMap/Tagging page is just, "The reference number of the railway
> line the track belongs to."  There's no such thing as a track reference
> number anywhere in NA, it's literally a foreign concept on this side of the
> Atlantic.  I suspect the description is so short, because it turns out the
> fine folks in Germany (where this tagging scheme was first developed)
> number their railway routes like we number highways in NA. This became
> blindingly obvious when I took a better look at both some of the better
> developed areas of the German map (which are WAY beyond the point we're at
> here, unfortunately for us at least), and started poking through the MapCSS
> style definition for the ORM renderer.
>
> I tried this out locally yesterday, and gave the server time to re-render
> the tiles.  If you put the reporting marks in the ref tag, which is
> otherwise used for absolutely nothing in NA and likely never would be, it
> works *beautifully* on the ORM render. A line with ref
> =NS
> 
> and name =South Branch
> 
> renders perfectly as "NS South Branch" at zooms >= 15, and as just "NS" at
> zooms 12-14, and with no tag at zooms <12. This is *exactly* the labeling
> style expected on a standard North American rail map - finally! And no
> modifications to the renderer necessary to make it work perfectly. I've
> uploaded samples at Zoom 12
> 
> and at Zoom 15
> 
> for comparison.
>
> For any non-NA readers who might be just as confused about the
> desirability of that tagging style as I was about nice, sensible railway
> route numbers, that has been the 

Re: [Talk-us] Rail tagging in US (and North America): operator=* and reporting_marks=*

[Chuck Sanders]

Nathan,

I've been working to "broaden my horizons" as an east coast guy, and I can
see why it was probably confusing why I didn't understand your references
to line segment numbering.  I've been rooting around in BNSF and UP
timetables, and they really are used prominently over there.  Turns out
this is just a regional thing where I wasn't exposed to them - they're
here, generally, but they aren't used as consistently where I might've seen
them myself, and the line segment numbering itself doesn't show up in ETT's
or some of the track charts.  I must've looked obtuse - oops!  But I'm on
the right path now.

For the major east coast Class I's, NS still isn't using line segment
numbers in the latest ETT's I have for the region I work around.  They do
refer to line segments by name in the ETT, but to confuse matters, they
often group segments with multiple line segment numbers under a single line
segment name for reference in the ETT.  You have to root all the way into
the track charts to get to the number.  So for instance, they lump the line
segments for the Lamberts Point Branch and the Norfolk Terminal mainline
all together under "Lamberts Point to Canal Drive" in the 2008 ETT, but in
the 2009 track charts, that includes line segments 5010, 5022, and maybe
part of 5020.  They don't actually make it clear anywhere in even the track
charts where one LS ends and the next begins, they only list which line
segments are present on that chart page.  And they aren't using the actual
line segment numbers on the FRA crossing inventory forms, either, they're
just filling box 13 with the alpha character part of the mile marker
designation (e.g. "LP" for crossings on the Lamberts Point branch, with LP
mile markers).

I haven't done anything with CSX for ages, and don't have any of their
recent documentation.  I did grab a fairly recent ETT for my area online,
and they unfortunately don't reference the line segment numbers at all.  I
only see track charts online that are as old as my stuff, and they aren't
referencing them either, but those are ancient.  So far the best accessible
source of line segment numbers I've found for them are the crossing
inventory sheets - CSX is at least filling out Block 13 with the line
segment numbers like they're supposed to.  That may be our best source of
numbers for most mappers to use.  CSX's older track charts do sort out
sections according to an EIS# that appears analogous to the line segment
numbers used by others, but unfortunately when compared with any other
current documentation, they appear to have changed numbering systems, so
they may not be usable.  A much newer track chart from them would be a big
help.  (And unfortunately, finding out anything about their old EIS
numbering system from outside, after the fact, is almost impossible since
the acronym overlaps with modern environmental impact studies, which are
obviously the more common use of the term now.)

A lot of my local short lines aren't even filling out block 13 on the
crossing forms, so they'll be the biggest challenge.  The inconsistency is
a little frustrating.

So far the only one in a couple hours worth of looking around who are
actually consistent in all locations that I've looked at is BNSF - one
example is the Pikes Peak Sub (477), which they're consistently numbering
in the ETT and in block 13 of the inventory forms.  UP's numbering the LS
in the ETT but leaving block 13 blank.  I wish my guys out east were being
as consistent as BNSF.

Overall, though, I definitely agree with your assessment that these line
segment numbers are what belongs in the ref tag for us wherever we can find
it - thanks for helping me understand it!

Chuck
Virginia

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 3:10 PM Natfoot  wrote:

> Chuck,
> I think you make some good points in your email.  I would discourage the
> hang ups on the diffring railroad terminology as it is different by
> railroad and location.  Coming to a decision on how we are going to tag is
> more important. I agree that line segments are useful and interested to
> hear how you would suggest to tag them.
>
> Here some examples of the use of the ref=* tag
> https://www.openrailwaymap.org/?lang=null=39.77267707885666=-104.98619109392166=18=standard
>
>
>
> https://www.openrailwaymap.org/?lang=null=39.78832735578315=-104.99941036105156=19=standard
>
>
> https://www.openrailwaymap.org/?lang=null=41.860825816587464=-87.63588219881058=18=standard
>
>
> Regards,
> Nathan P
> email: natf...@gmail.com
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 9:28 AM Chuck Sanders  wrote:
>
>> Nathan, thanks - I've been thinking over your email and use case since
>> coffee this morning, and looking for the right questions to pick your brain
>> too, so that we can get the documentation right in the NA tagging wiki, and
>> all of us on the same page.  I also started working up a a NA-specific and
>> simplified JOSM tagging preset, so that's part of my impetus to really
>> start getting into the weeds on this - part of 

Re: [Talk-us] Rail tagging in US (and North America): operator=* and reporting_marks=*

[Chuck Sanders]

My thoughts exactly.

I think part of the problem is that some map editors spend so much time as
a map editor, they forget to both think as a map user, and to think broadly
that there are a lot of types of map user that are interested in
fundamentally different but compatible things from their map.  In terms of
the maker/user confusion, in that respect I mean they get so used to
looking at a map from a point of view of verifying its accuracy, they
forget a map user looks at a map to find out the information they *don't*
know standing there in the street.

I always feel like the hardcore deletion argument seems to come from people
who can't understand why you'd want to know where a railway went in the
first place, and probably wouldn't know what an abandoned railway on the
ground looked like even if they were standing in the middle of one.  The
"making the map better" argument doesn't really work for me, because even
an abandoned rail route (with signs still visible on the ground) that's
properly tagged doesn't render in the default OpenStreetMap view anyway;
only in the specialist renderings for users that are actually interested in
it, like OpenRailwayMap - so you can't say you're cluttering the map.  I've
seen a few people argue it's to keep the map uncluttered for editors, but
that's a problem with a technical solution, just like "don't tag for the
editor."  I work in JOSM, and if I find that abandoned railways clutter my
work environment, it's trivial to just set a filter so they don't show
anymore.  If someone's editor of choice doesn't have a filter like that,
that's the fault of the editor, not of the person who put in an element
representing something that's still detectable on the map but which another
editor doesn't want to see.

I can see the argument where the route is genuinely razed (the open pit
mine argument), because in that respect all traces on the ground and in
aerial views have been completely eliminated, unlike an abandoned line
where you can still follow its route on the ground in cuttings,
embankments, hedges, building shapes, etc.  It makes total sense in most
mappable features that aren't railways, like someone's example of a castle
where only a corner is standing and detectable.  There, mapping the rest of
the "imaginary" part of a building does clutter the map and make it worse,
and it doesn't give the map user any information they couldn't better
obtain by going to a document that's actually meant to be dedicated to that
structure.  However, even here I feel like shorter razed sections of
railway make a sensible exception, because the many visible portions make
better sense when the railway on a specialist map like OpenRailwayMap is
shown in its entirety, including the brief razed sections, and the "making
the map better by deletion" argument falls flat to me again because neither
the razed nor abandoned portions will render on a map for a user who isn't
specifically interested in it.

Chuck

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 9:29 AM Russell Nelson  wrote:

> On 6/14/20 6:34 PM, Chuck Sanders wrote:
> > after watching the re-discussion of the abandoned railroad line "where
> > do we draw the line" topic, from a somewhat-outside perspective,
>
> I've given up arguing. I treat deletion of abandoned railways as
> vandalism and just fix it. Not seeing something is no reason to delete
> it -- because someone else might be able to see it. This is my classic
> example:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=20/42.721785518232124/-73.69278208233906
>
> How do you explain why this building is a triangle without mapping the
> abandoned railroad which ran along its hypotenuse? Once you do that, it
> becomes obvious.
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Rail tagging in US (and North America): operator=* and reporting_marks=*

[Russell Nelson]

On 6/14/20 6:34 PM, Chuck Sanders wrote:
after watching the re-discussion of the abandoned railroad line "where 
do we draw the line" topic, from a somewhat-outside perspective,


I've given up arguing. I treat deletion of abandoned railways as 
vandalism and just fix it. Not seeing something is no reason to delete 
it -- because someone else might be able to see it. This is my classic 
example:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=20/42.721785518232124/-73.69278208233906

How do you explain why this building is a triangle without mapping the 
abandoned railroad which ran along its hypotenuse? Once you do that, it 
becomes obvious.




___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Rail tagging in US (and North America): operator=* and reporting_marks=*

[Chuck Sanders via Talk-us]

Agreed on all of that, honestly.

It's funny, but the one handy thing about the state wikis is having such a
good place to keep notes.  I started adding info to the Virginia/Railroads
page just under a week ago because it turns out to be a simpler way of
keeping notes on what I have and haven't started already ... and that way
if someone other than me does start getting into rail in VA again, at least
there's some pre-coordination work done.  Not sure how many will, though -
the only edit to the VA rail page before this week going all the way back
to 2012 was fixing some of the categories at the bottom last year!  So I
think I'm going to have plenty to keep me busy for a while ...

It's funny, but regarding Wikipedia, and from coming back here after 10
years of being off on other things, their strict citation rules feel a lot
like the vocal portion of editors here who are extra-strict about "map
what's on the ground."  I agree with both that and Wikipedia's rule in
principle, but after watching the re-discussion of the abandoned railroad
line "where do we draw the line" topic, from a somewhat-outside
perspective, I feel like some folks' definition of "on the ground" is "if
it were a snake it'd be so obvious it'd have bit me."  Which is all to say,
I guess every community has their one or two funny topics!

Chuck
VA

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 10:15 AM Russell Nelson  wrote:

> On 6/13/20 12:25 AM, stevea wrote:
> > It is absolutely fascinating (to me, anyway) to watch this conversation!
> >
> > I thanked Russ Nelson on wiki for his comments at New York/Railroads.
> (And we still have a ways to go there).
> Yeah, for me the map is much more important than the wiki. Except for
> Wikipedia's stupid citation rules, all that information belongs in
> Wikipedia. Although if it drives more mappers, that's fine. Maybe we
> should populate the wiki with the old_railroad_operator information?
> That would be a smart.
>
> I wish NE2 could have managed to color within the lines. He was a very
> prolific mapper.
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Rail tagging in US (and North America): operator=* and reporting_marks=*

[Chuck Sanders]

Sorry to be a little slow today, the weather was gorgeous here today
(probably the prettiest day we've had all spring so far!) and I got cabin
fever at lunch. Now I'm in nap mode, and trying to get caught up on all the
excellent discussion that happened when I was soaking up the sun this
afternoon.

Those are gorgeous examples. I wish more of the stuff in my area was even
1/4 that far along, but I think I'm the only one really doing rail work in
my immediate region.

I think one immediate result of this conversation has largely lead me to
conclude that at the very least, my reporting marks in the ref tag
suggestion may have been expedient, but I think does conflict with other
valuable data that does belong there - and there are already appropriate
values for both ref and track_ref. So as we go, I'll just drop that one now
as a bad idea, and maybe look for a solution in the renderer later to make
reporting marks in the proper reporting_marks field display right instead,
as suggested. Thanks!

The second topic of ref vs track_ref was about to be one of my next
questions, and I'm happy to segue right into that if no one else minds. A
brief side note on what has me getting into the weeds on some of these, I'd
done a bit of rudimentary US rail mapping about ten years ago, before
OpenRailwayMap existed, and then got side tracked out of OSM mapping for
what turned out to be a decade (oops). Came back to this wonderful new tag
and map project, but it took me a couple of weeks to figure out how to get
enough of a good understanding of how to apply the scheme in America for me
to make it work. I figured if I was confused and doing all this digging to
understand, maybe I should make contributing to the documentation my first
task while it's fresh in my mind, to make it easier for the next new guy. I
hate to admit it, but seeing several obviously experienced mappers still
working out a mutual understanding of some of the less obvious tags sure
does make me feel a little less embarrassed about my weeks of head
scratching.

That said, here is my impression of how the tags were meant to work so far,
and bearing in mind I'm clearly neither the most experienced mapper or
railroad guy in the conversation (I've always worked around and often with
but not directly for them, and a few of these are a little obscure):

ref: my understanding in the original scheme (German) is that this is more
like a highway route number - it doesn't identify individual tracks without
some further qualifier. The closest analogue to this I've seen in the US is
the Line Segment Number, which was new to me (I'm a bridge guy, and not a
right of way or track guy, and in my region this seems to be universally
assigned now because it's required by FRA, but not really universally used,
and in practice omitted from an awful lot of documentation). In terms of
granularity, a Subdivision or District my be composed of several line
segments, and each of these is likely to have several tracks - i.e. both
main tracks of a two track main have the same segment number. I know this
number appears on newer NS track charts, but I don't have any remotely
recent CSX track charts for comparison, and know these were not on the
older CSX track charts I'm familiar with. Also doesn't appear in employee
timetables for either.

track_ref: this one I find pretty fuzzy on the original use, because I know
too little about the network the scheme was designed for, and I do find the
wiki very vague. What I think this is meant to be is their equivalent to
what started out as the valuation map track number here, which is a unique
identifier for each track on the line, down to the last spur and siding.
This is why I've been asking related follow up questions to Nathan, because
this one seems to carry different colloquial names in different regions, so
I'm looking to figure out if we're indeed talking about the same reference
number, or I'm completely missing the boat. For instance, in a lot of NS
documentation this term has morphed into either siding number or accounting
number, depending on which documentation I'm working on and its age, but
the number itself carries through despite the terminology changes. I do see
these referenced in track charts, but I'm only ever really around mainline
track charts (not a lot of bridges in yards), so I haven't really looked at
a yard chart since I was growing up, and really don't remember. I've never
personally noticed these in timetables.

description: this tag I understand to be the common name of individual
track segments. They are how I see tracks referred to in timetables, and
vary widely from proper names ("Applied Sciences lead") to simple
descriptive ("Yard track 5") to alphanumeric (yard I grew up around had
Tracks 1-8 on the north side of the main, and L01-L06 on the south side,
both of those were how referenced in the timetables).

That's my next main question. Am I understanding that distinction right?
Nathan, do you have any of your 

Re: [Talk-us] Rail tagging in US (and North America): operator=* and reporting_marks=*

[Natfoot]

I guess I have been confused all this time.

Nathan P
email: natf...@gmail.com


On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 12:49 PM Clay Smalley  wrote:

> If I'm not mistaken, the examples you've given are instances of
> railway:track_ref=*, not ref=*.
>
> Throwing my two cents in here—that coincides with the way I personally use
> railway:track_ref=*. My understanding is that this uniquely identifies
> tracks within a line, station or yard, and is not synonymous with ref=*
> which seems to be a globally (nationally? operator-wide?) unique identifier.
>
> Here's an example in a station in Germany:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20889332
>
> In this case, track segment (ref=) 2610 is the (railway:track_ref=) 4th
> out of 8 parallel tracks at Neuss Central. In my experience, tracks in
> North America tend to be numbered extensively this way (Main Track 2, Yard
> Track 57, etc.). I've been filling railway:track_ref=* in with this
> information throughout California and the Northeast. I think ref=* would be
> useful information to fill in though I want to be sure about the definition
> of ref=* and that the source of information is authoritative and freely
> usable.
>
> Looking forward to how this discussion turns out.
>
> -Clay
>
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 12:12 PM Natfoot  wrote:
>
>> Chuck,
>> I think you make some good points in your email.  I would discourage the
>> hang ups on the diffring railroad terminology as it is different by
>> railroad and location.  Coming to a decision on how we are going to tag is
>> more important. I agree that line segments are useful and interested to
>> hear how you would suggest to tag them.
>>
>> Here some examples of the use of the ref=* tag
>> https://www.openrailwaymap.org/?lang=null=39.77267707885666=-104.98619109392166=18=standard
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.openrailwaymap.org/?lang=null=39.78832735578315=-104.99941036105156=19=standard
>>
>>
>> https://www.openrailwaymap.org/?lang=null=41.860825816587464=-87.63588219881058=18=standard
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Nathan P
>> email: natf...@gmail.com
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 9:28 AM Chuck Sanders  wrote:
>>
>>> Nathan, thanks - I've been thinking over your email and use case since
>>> coffee this morning, and looking for the right questions to pick your brain
>>> too, so that we can get the documentation right in the NA tagging wiki, and
>>> all of us on the same page.  I also started working up a a NA-specific and
>>> simplified JOSM tagging preset, so that's part of my impetus to really
>>> start getting into the weeds on this - part of my goal of the preset is to
>>> make it easy for all of us to tag consistently on the important tags ... so
>>> a huge part of that is making sure everything I do *agrees* with what
>>> everyone else understands those important tags to be!
>>>
>>> In particular, I can see the value of that BNSF track segment document
>>> you've been working on with others, and completely agree that's also
>>> information that should be captured properly in our metadata as well, I'm
>>> just trying to understand myself whether the ref tag is likely to be the
>>> right tag to do that.
>>>
>>> So far, I'm familiar with at least two different sets of "line numbers"
>>> in the US, and I haven't seen either used consistently before in the US in
>>> the way I understand that ref tag was meant to be used.
>>>
>>> One is the number set that started with the ICC Valuation Map Sections
>>> 100 years ago.  A lot of that data persisted long term, and I still see
>>> references in current documents, especially with NS material (I'm an east
>>> coast guy).  I also still see that referenced and used in a good bit of my
>>> CSXT documentation.  I've seen some of the related numbers also referred to
>>> as accounting numbers, and these do appear in certain current FRA records
>>> as well.
>>>
>>> The second is the "newer" FRA Line Segment numbers.  I believe the way
>>> FRA intended these to be used when they directed the creation of this
>>> system is the closest analogy we have to the German route numbers I was
>>> referring to.  NS does keep them on their track charts, but I haven't seen
>>> them on much CSX documentation.  Interestingly, even though these are meant
>>> to be used in the crossing number inventory forms, I often see this omitted
>>> in NS forms (even ones revised and completed recently), though it's usally
>>> completed in CSX forms.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, as I work as a bridge inspector and designer and not a
>>> track inspector (and have always worked peripherally to the railroads and
>>> not directly for them), I'm not directly working with the same information
>>> you are as a track inspector.  Have these line segment numbers really
>>> finally been adopted as real, working route numbers?
>>>
>>> Chuck
>>> VA
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 12:30 AM Natfoot  wrote:
>>>
 Sorry I saw your email in the ORM list and responded directly.
 I find line segment numbers on track charts and timetables. I mostly

Re: [Talk-us] Rail tagging in US (and North America): operator=* and reporting_marks=*

[stevea]

Russ Nelson writes:
> Yeah, for me the map is much more important than the wiki. Except for 
> Wikipedia's stupid citation rules, all that information > belongs in 
> Wikipedia. Although if it drives more mappers, that's fine. Maybe we should 
> populate the wiki with the
> old_railroad_operator information? That would be a smart. I wish NE2 could 
> have managed to color within the lines.
> He was a very prolific mapper.

As the author of that "in-its-infancy / not-even-alpha" New York/Railroads wiki 
(and dozens of other state-level /Railroads wikis, some of which ARE alpha, and 
a few are beta) I must say I agree whole-heartedly with Russ (and I believe 
most of us) that "map data are much more important than wiki data."  
Additionally, in 11 years of OSM mapping and wiki-writing, I HAVE seen that 
wiki (which admittedly does lag mapping) very much can contribute quite 
positively to developing community, establishing standards (which might 
slightly diverge at a continental-level instead of worldwide, or a state-level 
instead of nationwide, so let's wiki-document those divergences) AND allows an 
at-a-glance "status report" mechanism by color-coding (red-yellow-green) how 
far certain progress is (such as TIGER Review) in tables.

This admittedly does straddle a line of "effort expended vs. positive benefit 
gained" but in another agreement with Russ, "as it DOES seem to drive mappers, 
that's fine."  The wiki isn't always a go-to for would-be rail mappers, but for 
those curious who discover somebody has taken some time to develop a statewide 
rail wiki local to them (even at a pre-alpha level of completion) it can be 
like a guided tour while someone gently holds your hand.  As "all Western 
states" now have at least a preliminary /Railroads wiki, we are well on our way 
to the back-and-forth development of both better rail editing that improves 
TIGER data and developed and updated wiki which reflect the progress in doing 
so:  the "divide (by a state at a time) and conquer (to the extent any single 
editor has the energy to do so!)" strategy of doing this with USA rail really 
works.

I like the potentiality of a typo with "that would be a smart" (start?)  Yes, 
old_railroad_operator tagging and wiki-inclusion is an important consideration 
for rail tagging in the USA, most often for Abandoned rail:  see how 
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/California/Railroads#Abandoned_lines (for example) 
consistently includes old_railway_operator=* as table Column #2, this seems the 
completely correct thing to do (in the wiki, yes, but in tagging 
old_railway_operator=* in the map as "more important," we agree).

Regarding NE2, I had my interactions with him way-back-when.  He was like the 
Good (he WAS prolific!), the Bad and the Ugly all rolled up into one.  Many 
have said "good riddance" to him being banned, he was certainly an early OSM 
example of "be bold."

My personal experience of feeling like USA rail mapping is overwhelming (it is 
a VAST amount of data) is that "eating the elephant" really can be done one 
bite at a time, where state-level "divide and conquer" is actually doable.  
Yes, California is a gigantic rail state, but over the years, we've been able 
to get the data and the wiki to "later beta."  We can do so in other states, 
too:  data being more important, wiki being secondary, but still important to 
build community, establish maybe-local standards, and offer "status reporting" 
with color-coded tables.

I am bowled over that Nathan Proudfoot says "Researchers utilize OSM as we have 
the most up to date railway map in the country of any data source...".  Wow!

Go OSM,
SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Rail tagging in US (and North America): operator=* and reporting_marks=*

[Clay Smalley]

If I'm not mistaken, the examples you've given are instances of
railway:track_ref=*, not ref=*.

Throwing my two cents in here—that coincides with the way I personally use
railway:track_ref=*. My understanding is that this uniquely identifies
tracks within a line, station or yard, and is not synonymous with ref=*
which seems to be a globally (nationally? operator-wide?) unique identifier.

Here's an example in a station in Germany:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20889332

In this case, track segment (ref=) 2610 is the (railway:track_ref=) 4th out
of 8 parallel tracks at Neuss Central. In my experience, tracks in North
America tend to be numbered extensively this way (Main Track 2, Yard Track
57, etc.). I've been filling railway:track_ref=* in with this information
throughout California and the Northeast. I think ref=* would be useful
information to fill in though I want to be sure about the definition of
ref=* and that the source of information is authoritative and freely usable.

Looking forward to how this discussion turns out.

-Clay

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 12:12 PM Natfoot  wrote:

> Chuck,
> I think you make some good points in your email.  I would discourage the
> hang ups on the diffring railroad terminology as it is different by
> railroad and location.  Coming to a decision on how we are going to tag is
> more important. I agree that line segments are useful and interested to
> hear how you would suggest to tag them.
>
> Here some examples of the use of the ref=* tag
> https://www.openrailwaymap.org/?lang=null=39.77267707885666=-104.98619109392166=18=standard
>
>
>
> https://www.openrailwaymap.org/?lang=null=39.78832735578315=-104.99941036105156=19=standard
>
>
> https://www.openrailwaymap.org/?lang=null=41.860825816587464=-87.63588219881058=18=standard
>
>
> Regards,
> Nathan P
> email: natf...@gmail.com
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 9:28 AM Chuck Sanders  wrote:
>
>> Nathan, thanks - I've been thinking over your email and use case since
>> coffee this morning, and looking for the right questions to pick your brain
>> too, so that we can get the documentation right in the NA tagging wiki, and
>> all of us on the same page.  I also started working up a a NA-specific and
>> simplified JOSM tagging preset, so that's part of my impetus to really
>> start getting into the weeds on this - part of my goal of the preset is to
>> make it easy for all of us to tag consistently on the important tags ... so
>> a huge part of that is making sure everything I do *agrees* with what
>> everyone else understands those important tags to be!
>>
>> In particular, I can see the value of that BNSF track segment document
>> you've been working on with others, and completely agree that's also
>> information that should be captured properly in our metadata as well, I'm
>> just trying to understand myself whether the ref tag is likely to be the
>> right tag to do that.
>>
>> So far, I'm familiar with at least two different sets of "line numbers"
>> in the US, and I haven't seen either used consistently before in the US in
>> the way I understand that ref tag was meant to be used.
>>
>> One is the number set that started with the ICC Valuation Map Sections
>> 100 years ago.  A lot of that data persisted long term, and I still see
>> references in current documents, especially with NS material (I'm an east
>> coast guy).  I also still see that referenced and used in a good bit of my
>> CSXT documentation.  I've seen some of the related numbers also referred to
>> as accounting numbers, and these do appear in certain current FRA records
>> as well.
>>
>> The second is the "newer" FRA Line Segment numbers.  I believe the way
>> FRA intended these to be used when they directed the creation of this
>> system is the closest analogy we have to the German route numbers I was
>> referring to.  NS does keep them on their track charts, but I haven't seen
>> them on much CSX documentation.  Interestingly, even though these are meant
>> to be used in the crossing number inventory forms, I often see this omitted
>> in NS forms (even ones revised and completed recently), though it's usally
>> completed in CSX forms.
>>
>> Unfortunately, as I work as a bridge inspector and designer and not a
>> track inspector (and have always worked peripherally to the railroads and
>> not directly for them), I'm not directly working with the same information
>> you are as a track inspector.  Have these line segment numbers really
>> finally been adopted as real, working route numbers?
>>
>> Chuck
>> VA
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 12:30 AM Natfoot  wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry I saw your email in the ORM list and responded directly.
>>> I find line segment numbers on track charts and timetables. I mostly
>>> work with lines that have left BNSF or its predecessors so I have
>>> line segments that were assigned by those railroads.  Here is a great list
>>> of line segments of the BNSF/BN/GN/NP Etc.
>>> .
>>> 

Re: [Talk-us] Rail tagging in US (and North America): operator=* and reporting_marks=*

[Natfoot]

Chuck,
I think you make some good points in your email.  I would discourage the
hang ups on the diffring railroad terminology as it is different by
railroad and location.  Coming to a decision on how we are going to tag is
more important. I agree that line segments are useful and interested to
hear how you would suggest to tag them.

Here some examples of the use of the ref=* tag
https://www.openrailwaymap.org/?lang=null=39.77267707885666=-104.98619109392166=18=standard


https://www.openrailwaymap.org/?lang=null=39.78832735578315=-104.99941036105156=19=standard


https://www.openrailwaymap.org/?lang=null=41.860825816587464=-87.63588219881058=18=standard


Regards,
Nathan P
email: natf...@gmail.com


On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 9:28 AM Chuck Sanders  wrote:

> Nathan, thanks - I've been thinking over your email and use case since
> coffee this morning, and looking for the right questions to pick your brain
> too, so that we can get the documentation right in the NA tagging wiki, and
> all of us on the same page.  I also started working up a a NA-specific and
> simplified JOSM tagging preset, so that's part of my impetus to really
> start getting into the weeds on this - part of my goal of the preset is to
> make it easy for all of us to tag consistently on the important tags ... so
> a huge part of that is making sure everything I do *agrees* with what
> everyone else understands those important tags to be!
>
> In particular, I can see the value of that BNSF track segment document
> you've been working on with others, and completely agree that's also
> information that should be captured properly in our metadata as well, I'm
> just trying to understand myself whether the ref tag is likely to be the
> right tag to do that.
>
> So far, I'm familiar with at least two different sets of "line numbers" in
> the US, and I haven't seen either used consistently before in the US in the
> way I understand that ref tag was meant to be used.
>
> One is the number set that started with the ICC Valuation Map Sections 100
> years ago.  A lot of that data persisted long term, and I still see
> references in current documents, especially with NS material (I'm an east
> coast guy).  I also still see that referenced and used in a good bit of my
> CSXT documentation.  I've seen some of the related numbers also referred to
> as accounting numbers, and these do appear in certain current FRA records
> as well.
>
> The second is the "newer" FRA Line Segment numbers.  I believe the way FRA
> intended these to be used when they directed the creation of this system is
> the closest analogy we have to the German route numbers I was referring
> to.  NS does keep them on their track charts, but I haven't seen them on
> much CSX documentation.  Interestingly, even though these are meant to be
> used in the crossing number inventory forms, I often see this omitted in NS
> forms (even ones revised and completed recently), though it's usally
> completed in CSX forms.
>
> Unfortunately, as I work as a bridge inspector and designer and not a
> track inspector (and have always worked peripherally to the railroads and
> not directly for them), I'm not directly working with the same information
> you are as a track inspector.  Have these line segment numbers really
> finally been adopted as real, working route numbers?
>
> Chuck
> VA
>
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 12:30 AM Natfoot  wrote:
>
>> Sorry I saw your email in the ORM list and responded directly.
>> I find line segment numbers on track charts and timetables. I mostly work
>> with lines that have left BNSF or its predecessors so I have line segments
>> that were assigned by those railroads.  Here is a great list of
>> line segments of the BNSF/BN/GN/NP Etc.
>> .
>> http://www.nprha.org/NP%20Track%20Segments%20of%20BNSF/BNSF%20Track%20Segments%20Version%2010.pdf
>>
>> I'm on line segments, 403, 405, 408, and 411.
>> And I don't trust the FRA database to be accurate.
>>
>> Nathan P
>> email: natf...@gmail.com
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 8:45 PM Chuck Sanders  wrote:
>>
>>> I'd love any information you can send regarding any sort of route number
>>> in use here like you're discussing. I've worked around the US rail industry
>>> for several decades (federal bridge engineer), and have never heard of such
>>> a thing, so I'm very curious.
>>>
>>> You're not talking about the FRAARCID in the FRA dataset, right?
>>>
>>> And I have to say, while "don't tag for the renderer" is almost always
>>> right, it also doesn't mean that a tag that works well already is
>>> automatically wrong, provided it also doesn't damage the validity of
>>> integrity of your dataset, and is consistent with the data scheme.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Chuck
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 10:38 PM Natfoot  wrote:
>>>
 Chuck,

 Thank You for your time fixing the reporting marks section.

 Railroad Line numbers do exist for railroads in the United States and
 Canada.
 Ref= is for the use of line numbers.  

Re: [Talk-us] Rail tagging in US (and North America): operator=* and reporting_marks=*

[Chuck Sanders]

Nathan, thanks - I've been thinking over your email and use case since
coffee this morning, and looking for the right questions to pick your brain
too, so that we can get the documentation right in the NA tagging wiki, and
all of us on the same page.  I also started working up a a NA-specific and
simplified JOSM tagging preset, so that's part of my impetus to really
start getting into the weeds on this - part of my goal of the preset is to
make it easy for all of us to tag consistently on the important tags ... so
a huge part of that is making sure everything I do *agrees* with what
everyone else understands those important tags to be!

In particular, I can see the value of that BNSF track segment document
you've been working on with others, and completely agree that's also
information that should be captured properly in our metadata as well, I'm
just trying to understand myself whether the ref tag is likely to be the
right tag to do that.

So far, I'm familiar with at least two different sets of "line numbers" in
the US, and I haven't seen either used consistently before in the US in the
way I understand that ref tag was meant to be used.

One is the number set that started with the ICC Valuation Map Sections 100
years ago.  A lot of that data persisted long term, and I still see
references in current documents, especially with NS material (I'm an east
coast guy).  I also still see that referenced and used in a good bit of my
CSXT documentation.  I've seen some of the related numbers also referred to
as accounting numbers, and these do appear in certain current FRA records
as well.

The second is the "newer" FRA Line Segment numbers.  I believe the way FRA
intended these to be used when they directed the creation of this system is
the closest analogy we have to the German route numbers I was referring
to.  NS does keep them on their track charts, but I haven't seen them on
much CSX documentation.  Interestingly, even though these are meant to be
used in the crossing number inventory forms, I often see this omitted in NS
forms (even ones revised and completed recently), though it's usally
completed in CSX forms.

Unfortunately, as I work as a bridge inspector and designer and not a track
inspector (and have always worked peripherally to the railroads and not
directly for them), I'm not directly working with the same information you
are as a track inspector.  Have these line segment numbers really finally
been adopted as real, working route numbers?

Chuck
VA

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 12:30 AM Natfoot  wrote:

> Sorry I saw your email in the ORM list and responded directly.
> I find line segment numbers on track charts and timetables. I mostly work
> with lines that have left BNSF or its predecessors so I have line segments
> that were assigned by those railroads.  Here is a great list of
> line segments of the BNSF/BN/GN/NP Etc.
> .
> http://www.nprha.org/NP%20Track%20Segments%20of%20BNSF/BNSF%20Track%20Segments%20Version%2010.pdf
>
> I'm on line segments, 403, 405, 408, and 411.
> And I don't trust the FRA database to be accurate.
>
> Nathan P
> email: natf...@gmail.com
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 8:45 PM Chuck Sanders  wrote:
>
>> I'd love any information you can send regarding any sort of route number
>> in use here like you're discussing. I've worked around the US rail industry
>> for several decades (federal bridge engineer), and have never heard of such
>> a thing, so I'm very curious.
>>
>> You're not talking about the FRAARCID in the FRA dataset, right?
>>
>> And I have to say, while "don't tag for the renderer" is almost always
>> right, it also doesn't mean that a tag that works well already is
>> automatically wrong, provided it also doesn't damage the validity of
>> integrity of your dataset, and is consistent with the data scheme.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Chuck
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 10:38 PM Natfoot  wrote:
>>
>>> Chuck,
>>>
>>> Thank You for your time fixing the reporting marks section.
>>>
>>> Railroad Line numbers do exist for railroads in the United States and
>>> Canada.
>>> Ref= is for the use of line numbers.  I can send you links to line
>>> numbers.  Line numbers were given to a line by the railroad when it was
>>> laid and often lasts it's entire lifetime, without a change. The other way
>>> I see it used is to identify what track number it is: Eg Main 1, or you are
>>> in a yard and there is track 1, 2, 3, etc.  Both of these are examples of
>>> track numbers.
>>>
>>>  I will discourage the changing of in use tags for the soul purpose of
>>> editing for the renderer.  This is a renderer problem and not a problem
>>> with OSM.Here is the wiki about not editing for the renderer
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer
>>>
>>>  There is a OpenRailwayMap email list.  I was just there chatting about
>>> how Traffic Control is different from Train Protection. I will agree that
>>> ORM under represents the data from North America that is already within the
>>> 

Re: [Talk-us] Rail tagging in US (and North America): operator=* and reporting_marks=*

[Russell Nelson]

On 6/13/20 12:30 AM, Natfoot wrote:

And I don't trust the FRA database to be accurate.

No database is perfect. Not even OSM. Some databases can be useful.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Rail tagging in US (and North America): operator=* and reporting_marks=*

[Russell Nelson]

On 6/13/20 12:25 AM, stevea wrote:

It is absolutely fascinating (to me, anyway) to watch this conversation!

I thanked Russ Nelson on wiki for his comments at New York/Railroads.  (And we 
still have a ways to go there).
Yeah, for me the map is much more important than the wiki. Except for 
Wikipedia's stupid citation rules, all that information belongs in 
Wikipedia. Although if it drives more mappers, that's fine. Maybe we 
should populate the wiki with the old_railroad_operator information? 
That would be a smart.


I wish NE2 could have managed to color within the lines. He was a very 
prolific mapper.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Rail tagging in US (and North America): operator=* and reporting_marks=*

[Natfoot]

Sorry I saw your email in the ORM list and responded directly.
I find line segment numbers on track charts and timetables. I mostly work
with lines that have left BNSF or its predecessors so I have line segments
that were assigned by those railroads.  Here is a great list of
line segments of the BNSF/BN/GN/NP Etc.
.
http://www.nprha.org/NP%20Track%20Segments%20of%20BNSF/BNSF%20Track%20Segments%20Version%2010.pdf

I'm on line segments, 403, 405, 408, and 411.
And I don't trust the FRA database to be accurate.

Nathan P
email: natf...@gmail.com


On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 8:45 PM Chuck Sanders  wrote:

> I'd love any information you can send regarding any sort of route number
> in use here like you're discussing. I've worked around the US rail industry
> for several decades (federal bridge engineer), and have never heard of such
> a thing, so I'm very curious.
>
> You're not talking about the FRAARCID in the FRA dataset, right?
>
> And I have to say, while "don't tag for the renderer" is almost always
> right, it also doesn't mean that a tag that works well already is
> automatically wrong, provided it also doesn't damage the validity of
> integrity of your dataset, and is consistent with the data scheme.
>
> Thanks!
> Chuck
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 10:38 PM Natfoot  wrote:
>
>> Chuck,
>>
>> Thank You for your time fixing the reporting marks section.
>>
>> Railroad Line numbers do exist for railroads in the United States and
>> Canada.
>> Ref= is for the use of line numbers.  I can send you links to line
>> numbers.  Line numbers were given to a line by the railroad when it was
>> laid and often lasts it's entire lifetime, without a change. The other way
>> I see it used is to identify what track number it is: Eg Main 1, or you are
>> in a yard and there is track 1, 2, 3, etc.  Both of these are examples of
>> track numbers.
>>
>>  I will discourage the changing of in use tags for the soul purpose of
>> editing for the renderer.  This is a renderer problem and not a problem
>> with OSM.Here is the wiki about not editing for the renderer
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer
>>
>>  There is a OpenRailwayMap email list.  I was just there chatting about
>> how Traffic Control is different from Train Protection. I will agree that
>> ORM under represents the data from North America that is already within the
>> map.  Please make these suggestions in the ORM list to make the ORM
>> renderer more usable as you have described.
>>
>> Quote from your email:
>> "  The label is occasionally the spelled out operator name, but most
>> commonly (better than 90% of examples) the operator reporting marks, which
>> serve as a standardized shorthand.  Even the names, as we tag them in the
>> name field, are rarely used to refer to the lines, and are essentially
>> never used on mapping here.They're the absolute last-choice designator, and
>> you *really* have to hunt to find any rail map in the US (including by the
>> operators) that labels any line by name."   " That's the US industry
>> standard."
>>
>>   All of this paragraph are style choices when rendering the data from
>> within OSM. If you would like this to change, talk to the ORM list or make
>> a better renderer. I will reject your assertion that we should dumb down
>> the map just becuase that is the way TOPO had it.  If you are a railroad
>> owner and you are worried about the amount of information on OSM that is a
>> valid argument but that is not the way you are presenting this as of now.
>>
>> Thanks for your thoughts on all of this. I agree that OpenStreetMap, Open
>> Railway Map, and the renderer could be improved to better show off what we
>> have here in North America. Researchers utilize OSM as we have the most up
>> to date railway map in the country of any data source and it is
>> important to maintain standards.  I believe that the wiki pertaining to
>> railway=* is confusing and the addition of continent specific tagging makes
>> it more difficult to understand.  If you would like to help me with
>> cataloging this information this is one of the side projects. But right now
>> I am over on Open Historical Map adding railroads over there.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>>> Nathan P
>>> email: natf...@gmail.com
>>>
>>
>>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Rail tagging in US (and North America): operator=* and reporting_marks=*

[stevea]

It is absolutely fascinating (to me, anyway) to watch this conversation!

I thanked Russ Nelson on wiki for his comments at New York/Railroads.  (And we 
still have a ways to go there).

SteveA

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Rail tagging in US (and North America): operator=* and reporting_marks=*

[Chuck Sanders]

I'd love any information you can send regarding any sort of route number in
use here like you're discussing. I've worked around the US rail industry
for several decades (federal bridge engineer), and have never heard of such
a thing, so I'm very curious.

You're not talking about the FRAARCID in the FRA dataset, right?

And I have to say, while "don't tag for the renderer" is almost always
right, it also doesn't mean that a tag that works well already is
automatically wrong, provided it also doesn't damage the validity of
integrity of your dataset, and is consistent with the data scheme.

Thanks!
Chuck

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 10:38 PM Natfoot  wrote:

> Chuck,
>
> Thank You for your time fixing the reporting marks section.
>
> Railroad Line numbers do exist for railroads in the United States and
> Canada.
> Ref= is for the use of line numbers.  I can send you links to line
> numbers.  Line numbers were given to a line by the railroad when it was
> laid and often lasts it's entire lifetime, without a change. The other way
> I see it used is to identify what track number it is: Eg Main 1, or you are
> in a yard and there is track 1, 2, 3, etc.  Both of these are examples of
> track numbers.
>
>  I will discourage the changing of in use tags for the soul purpose of
> editing for the renderer.  This is a renderer problem and not a problem
> with OSM.Here is the wiki about not editing for the renderer
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer
>
>  There is a OpenRailwayMap email list.  I was just there chatting about
> how Traffic Control is different from Train Protection. I will agree that
> ORM under represents the data from North America that is already within the
> map.  Please make these suggestions in the ORM list to make the ORM
> renderer more usable as you have described.
>
> Quote from your email:
> "  The label is occasionally the spelled out operator name, but most
> commonly (better than 90% of examples) the operator reporting marks, which
> serve as a standardized shorthand.  Even the names, as we tag them in the
> name field, are rarely used to refer to the lines, and are essentially
> never used on mapping here.They're the absolute last-choice designator, and
> you *really* have to hunt to find any rail map in the US (including by the
> operators) that labels any line by name."   " That's the US industry
> standard."
>
>   All of this paragraph are style choices when rendering the data from
> within OSM. If you would like this to change, talk to the ORM list or make
> a better renderer. I will reject your assertion that we should dumb down
> the map just becuase that is the way TOPO had it.  If you are a railroad
> owner and you are worried about the amount of information on OSM that is a
> valid argument but that is not the way you are presenting this as of now.
>
> Thanks for your thoughts on all of this. I agree that OpenStreetMap, Open
> Railway Map, and the renderer could be improved to better show off what we
> have here in North America. Researchers utilize OSM as we have the most up
> to date railway map in the country of any data source and it is
> important to maintain standards.  I believe that the wiki pertaining to
> railway=* is confusing and the addition of continent specific tagging makes
> it more difficult to understand.  If you would like to help me with
> cataloging this information this is one of the side projects. But right now
> I am over on Open Historical Map adding railroads over there.
>
> Best Regards,
>
>> Nathan P
>> email: natf...@gmail.com
>>
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Rail tagging in US (and North America): operator=* and reporting_marks=*

[Natfoot]

Chuck,

Thank You for your time fixing the reporting marks section.

Railroad Line numbers do exist for railroads in the United States and
Canada.
Ref= is for the use of line numbers.  I can send you links to line
numbers.  Line numbers were given to a line by the railroad when it was
laid and often lasts it's entire lifetime, without a change. The other way
I see it used is to identify what track number it is: Eg Main 1, or you are
in a yard and there is track 1, 2, 3, etc.  Both of these are examples of
track numbers.

 I will discourage the changing of in use tags for the soul purpose of
editing for the renderer.  This is a renderer problem and not a problem
with OSM.Here is the wiki about not editing for the renderer
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

 There is a OpenRailwayMap email list.  I was just there chatting about how
Traffic Control is different from Train Protection. I will agree that ORM
under represents the data from North America that is already within the
map.  Please make these suggestions in the ORM list to make the ORM
renderer more usable as you have described.

Quote from your email:
"  The label is occasionally the spelled out operator name, but most
commonly (better than 90% of examples) the operator reporting marks, which
serve as a standardized shorthand.  Even the names, as we tag them in the
name field, are rarely used to refer to the lines, and are essentially
never used on mapping here.They're the absolute last-choice designator, and
you *really* have to hunt to find any rail map in the US (including by the
operators) that labels any line by name."   " That's the US industry
standard."

  All of this paragraph are style choices when rendering the data from
within OSM. If you would like this to change, talk to the ORM list or make
a better renderer. I will reject your assertion that we should dumb down
the map just becuase that is the way TOPO had it.  If you are a railroad
owner and you are worried about the amount of information on OSM that is a
valid argument but that is not the way you are presenting this as of now.

Thanks for your thoughts on all of this. I agree that OpenStreetMap, Open
Railway Map, and the renderer could be improved to better show off what we
have here in North America. Researchers utilize OSM as we have the most up
to date railway map in the country of any data source and it is
important to maintain standards.  I believe that the wiki pertaining to
railway=* is confusing and the addition of continent specific tagging makes
it more difficult to understand.  If you would like to help me with
cataloging this information this is one of the side projects. But right now
I am over on Open Historical Map adding railroads over there.

Best Regards,

> Nathan P
> email: natf...@gmail.com
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Rail tagging in US (and North America): operator=* and reporting_marks=*

[Chuck Sanders]

In the interim this week, I got the wiki page up for tag:reporting_marks,
and started using the tag in my area as a bit of a test - we had the
thought that if there proved to be a better tag to hold this info, since
this is a "novel" tag, it'd be easy to query out places we'd used it and
just switch it to the more appropriate tag.  Meanwhile, we could at least
start entering the info we needed to eventually make the rail map show the
information North American rail users expect.

Turns out, there IS a better tag already, and it's *really* obvious, if you
know much about European rail networks ... which I don't, on the whole.
The best tag to use was already in the default tag scheme, but I glossed
over it based on its description, since nothing like it is used in North
American rail networks.

Long story short, in NA rail networks, we should be storing the reporting
marks in the ref=* tag on the way, and in a "pretty" way, as this tag is
directly rendered as part of the label.

I missed this, because the description of that tag in the
OpenRailwayMap/Tagging page is just, "The reference number of the railway
line the track belongs to."  There's no such thing as a track reference
number anywhere in NA, it's literally a foreign concept on this side of the
Atlantic.  I suspect the description is so short, because it turns out the
fine folks in Germany (where this tagging scheme was first developed)
number their railway routes like we number highways in NA. This became
blindingly obvious when I took a better look at both some of the better
developed areas of the German map (which are WAY beyond the point we're at
here, unfortunately for us at least), and started poking through the MapCSS
style definition for the ORM renderer.

I tried this out locally yesterday, and gave the server time to re-render
the tiles.  If you put the reporting marks in the ref tag, which is
otherwise used for absolutely nothing in NA and likely never would be, it
works *beautifully* on the ORM render. A line with ref
=NS

and name =South Branch

renders perfectly as "NS South Branch" at zooms >= 15, and as just "NS" at
zooms 12-14, and with no tag at zooms <12. This is *exactly* the labeling
style expected on a standard North American rail map - finally! And no
modifications to the renderer necessary to make it work perfectly. I've
uploaded samples at Zoom 12

and at Zoom 15

for comparison.

For any non-NA readers who might be just as confused about the desirability
of that tagging style as I was about nice, sensible railway route numbers,
that has been the default labeling of rail maps in NA for around 150
years.  The label is occasionally the spelled out operator name, but most
commonly (better than 90% of examples) the operator reporting marks, which
serve as a standardized shorthand.  Even the names, as we tag them in the
name field, are rarely used to refer to the lines, and are essentially
never used on mapping here.  They're the absolute last-choice designator,
and you *really* have to hunt to find any rail map in the US (including by
the operators) that labels any line by name.  This is in large part because
railway lines in the US have always almost exclusively been privately
owned, so in almost all cases the operator is effectively synonymous with
the route name (especially up to about 1950; before the huge wave of
national mergers started, each operator had one major route that was just
known by their operator name).  You never see a map labeled by route names,
it'd be the reporting marks with either an informal descriptive name (e.g.
NS Washington-to-Atlanta line), or most often a double reference that gives
the current and pre-mergers operator (e.g. NS ex-SOU), because that ex-
operator takes you back to 1950 where it identifies a single line.  That's
the US industry standard.

So, this tag scheme gets us the best of both worlds - a map that's actually
usable by a North American rail map consumer (which the current map is very
much not due to lack of operator labeling), a name which is still
consistent with the general OSM and ORM guidelines for wanting to apply
some sort of name, and all of it with zero change needed to the ORM
rendering settings to produce a usable map.  No special style, it's
perfectly usable as-is with the default worldwide rendering style.  You can
pan from Germany to the US and get a map that's exactly what people in the
region expect to see and use, all with no special settings.

The only thing we'll have to do a little different is the presentation of
the ref data, 

Re: [Talk-us] Rail tagging in US (and North America): operator=* and reporting_marks=*

[stevea]

I point out for those who might not know this:  rail tagging, despite excellent 
efforts by the ORM folks (largely in Germany, I understand) to encourage OSM to 
follow global tagging conventions for ORM, have already quite seriously 
fractured (necessarily) into country-specific tagging standards.  (Or in the 
case of North America, three-country-specific, as while there are differences 
in these three countries, they are relatively minor and do share a lot of 
commonality, quite intentionally, because of the large amount of interchange 
traffic between them).  This country-specificity is in both our tagging and in 
our wiki, and again, quite extensively.

SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Rail tagging in US (and North America): operator=* and reporting_marks=*

[stevea]

Volker (hello!) discusses that the tag (used in the USA, but not extensively) 
of "reporting_marks" isn't (I paraphrase him a bit) "as international as OSM 
might like it," and proposes presumed-better tag "operator_identifier" (I 
correct a minor spelling error in his posted suggestion).  Volker also mentions 
that this tag seems to be meant for rolling stock, asking on what sorts of OSM 
data the tag will be applied.

Meanwhile, Chuck (hello!) answers that reporting_marks will be applied to ways 
(perhaps not as originally intended to identify the owner / operator of rolling 
stock) but that this use of reporting_marks (or operator_identifier, it isn't 
yet decided) is semantically an excellent OSM syntactic synonym for 
"short_name_of_operator."  (I agree).

I'm of mixed opinion on this.  On the one hand, I agree with Volker that 
"regional tagging" (as in all of North America, as "reporting_marks" are used 
in all three countries) should be discouraged in OSM in favor of more worldwide 
standards / tagging, especially as they already exist (though, 
"operator_identifier" comes up empty in taginfo).  However, as this tag doesn't 
yet exist (in Europe or elsewhere), that diminishes its value, except going 
forward (and there's nothing wrong with that).  And, the tag "reporting_marks" 
(also, "reporting_mark" is used more often, though primarily by one mapper, 
Chuck and I have discussed these two tags should be conflated into 
"reporting_marks" as a single tag) already DOES exist, and it IS an existing 
"regional standard."  So, I'm sitting on the fence, seeing both potential 
solutions have merit.

What I think might work is for North American rail mapping to continue to 
"standardize" on using "reporting_marks" as a tag with a value that effectively 
stands in for "short_name_of_operator" (and we should wiki-document this) and 
others should chime in (please) with what I agree with Chuck is a good use of 
this simple (and widespread:  in all of Canada, USA and Mexico, which 
interchange a lot of rail with each other) "rail standard," 
regional-to-North-America though it is.  If Germany or European and / or Asian 
/ African / South American countries want to something like this, they might 
get started now, using (as I propose North America does) using their own flavor 
of "reporting_marks" (as originally intended to identify rolling stock) as a 
novel and useful method to identify carriers (owners / operators) on OSM ways 
as a synonym for short_name_of_operator.  Then, at some point in the future 
when there can be some global OSM harmonization of these, a proposal to roll 
them all into "operator_identifier" (which suits me just fine) can take place 
as a good idea that will standardize this sort of tagging worldwide.

But in the meantime, I think it a good idea for these to develop locally / 
regionally, with the terminology to both mappers and those familiar with 
railroad terminology (as it is used locally / regionally) being used.  That 
will "root" and better establish these tags, I believe this is (almost?) 
necessary (first).  The globalization / standardization can happen later.  This 
seems a workable approach, though I'd like to hear from others who might posit 
that a "no, let's globalize such tagging immediately" approach is better.

SteveA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Rail tagging in US (and North America): operator=* and reporting_marks=*

[Chuck Sanders]

 Actually, that makes complete sense to me too.  It would be very easy to
use "operator_identifier", and simply clarify in the North America tagging
wiki that the appropriate value is the primary reporting mark for Canada,
US, and Mexico lines.  I see no reason that wouldn't serve exactly the same
use we were proposing, but be more widely applicable outside NA.

This may be a good topic to foward to the OpenRailwayMap list for input too
- I'll do that now, thanks!

Chuck

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 12:07 PM Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> Thanks.
>
> so you are saying you use something which is part of of rolling stock
> identifier in a way for which it was not invented, but which is handy.
> From an OSM point of view, I would prefer a neutral tag (something like
> "operator_idenitfier") which in the US corresponds to the first part of the
> reporting mark of the carriages of that operator.
> And say in Germany it would be a different thing, but still a way of
> identifying line operators.
> This would give us a uniform approach.
> (I know that this is in theory irrelevant as OSM keys and values are
> codes, which in most cases are British English terms that make it easier to
> memorise them)
>
> Volker
>
> On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 at 16:56, Chuck Sanders  wrote:
>
>> Ways.
>>
>> The original use of Reporting Marks in NA is for rolling stock
>> identification, yes.  However, it's also the only common, reliable, and
>> consistent short form abbreviation for operators.  It's widely used that
>> way in both the railroad industry here and among the industry-connected
>> portions of the public.  So, not an official defined use of the mark, but
>> so common in use that it is effectively industry standard here.  For
>> example, the FRA, the official US government agency in control of railway
>> regulations, exclusively uses the reporting marks (and not full operator
>> name) for identification of ways and routes in their GIS database (
>> https://fragis.fra.dot.gov/GISFRASafety/ which is OSM-compatible and
>> already being used as a reference in the US).  Hence, we have an official
>> and authoritative source for which reporting mark is "primary" for each
>> company, and most appropriate to use - and it's already used as the
>> operator identification in the government map.
>>
>> All larger railroads do own (and often use) multiple different reporting
>> marks for their equipment, but all also have a single, best known,
>> "primary" reporting mark by which it will be commonly known, so this
>> proposal is effective even for lines with multiple registered marks
>> (especially with the help of the FRA map to clarify any inconsistencies).
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 9:35 AM Volker Schmidt  wrote:
>>
>>> Question on the term "reporting_mark"
>>> Wikipedia defines "reporting_mark" as "code used to identify owners or
>>> lessees of rolling stock 
>>> and other equipment" and describes such codes alo in other parts of the
>>> world.
>>> In your discussion you seem to refer to railway lines or routes and not
>>> to rolling stock.
>>>
>>> What kind objects in OSM will carry the tag reporting_mark=* ?
>>>
>>> Volker
>>> (Italy)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-us mailing list
>>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>>
>>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Rail tagging in US (and North America): operator=* and reporting_marks=*

[Chuck Sanders]

Volker, sorry for the double response, forgot to replay-all so this would
go back to the list.

Ways.

The original use of Reporting Marks in NA is for rolling stock
identification, yes.  However, it's also the only common, reliable, and
consistent short form abbreviation for operators.  It's widely used that
way in both the railroad industry here and among the industry-connected
portions of the public.  So, not an official defined use of the mark, but
so common in use that it is effectively industry standard here.  For
example, the FRA, the official US government agency in control of railway
regulations, exclusively uses the reporting marks (and not full operator
name) for identification of ways and routes in their GIS database (
https://fragis.fra.dot.gov/GISFRASafety/ which is OSM-compatible and
already being used as a reference in the US).  Hence, we have an official
and authoritative source for which reporting mark is "primary" for each
company, and most appropriate to use - and it's already used as the
operator identification in the government map.

All larger railroads do own (and often use) multiple different reporting
marks for their equipment, but all also have a single, best known,
"primary" reporting mark by which it will be commonly known, so this
proposal is effective even for lines with multiple registered marks
(especially with the help of the FRA map to clarify any inconsistencies).

Chuck

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 9:35 AM Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> Question on the term "reporting_mark"
> Wikipedia defines "reporting_mark" as "code used to identify owners or
> lessees of rolling stock 
> and other equipment" and describes such codes alo in other parts of the
> world.
> In your discussion you seem to refer to railway lines or routes and not to
> rolling stock.
>
> What kind objects in OSM will carry the tag reporting_mark=* ?
>
> Volker
> (Italy)
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Rail tagging in US (and North America): operator=* and reporting_marks=*

[Volker Schmidt]

Question on the term "reporting_mark"
Wikipedia defines "reporting_mark " as "code used to identify
owners or lessees of rolling stock
 and other equipment" and
describes such codes alo in other parts of the world.
In your discussion you seem to refer to railway lines or routes and not to
rolling stock.

What kind objects in OSM will carry the tag reporting_mark=* ?

Volker
(Italy)
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Rail tagging in US (and North America): operator=* and reporting_marks=*

[stevea]

My apologies (it was my error):  the correct link to Chuck's post is 
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Talk:OpenRailwayMap/Tagging_in_North_America
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us