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 <[email protected]> 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&lat=39.77267707885666&lon=-104.98619109392166&zoom=18&style=standard > > > > https://www.openrailwaymap.org/?lang=null&lat=39.78832735578315&lon=-104.99941036105156&zoom=19&style=standard > > > https://www.openrailwaymap.org/?lang=null&lat=41.860825816587464&lon=-87.63588219881058&zoom=18&style=standard > > > Regards, > Nathan P > email: [email protected] > > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 9:28 AM Chuck Sanders <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 8:45 PM Chuck Sanders <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
