I guess I have been confused all this time. Nathan P email: [email protected]
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 12:49 PM Clay Smalley <[email protected]> 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 <[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
