<div dir="auto"><div>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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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!</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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):</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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).</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">That's my next main question. Am I understanding that distinction right? Nathan, do you have any of your source documents at a convenient link where I can see what you're working with? I think part of my confusion is that the terminology has changed some, and I'm just behind.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Thanks!</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Chuck<br><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 3:10 PM Natfoot <<a href="mailto:natfoot@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">natfoot@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Chuck, <br>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.<div><br></div><div>Here some examples of the use of the ref=* tag
<a href="https://www.openrailwaymap.org/?lang=null&lat=39.77267707885666&lon=-104.98619109392166&zoom=18&style=standard" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openrailwaymap.org/?lang=null&lat=39.77267707885666&lon=-104.98619109392166&zoom=18&style=standard</a> </div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://www.openrailwaymap.org/?lang=null&lat=39.78832735578315&lon=-104.99941036105156&zoom=19&style=standard" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openrailwaymap.org/?lang=null&lat=39.78832735578315&lon=-104.99941036105156&zoom=19&style=standard</a></div><div><br></div><div>
<a href="https://www.openrailwaymap.org/?lang=null&lat=41.860825816587464&lon=-87.63588219881058&zoom=18&style=standard" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openrailwaymap.org/?lang=null&lat=41.860825816587464&lon=-87.63588219881058&zoom=18&style=standard</a> <br><br>Regards, <br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Nathan P<br></div><div>email: <a href="mailto:natfoot@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">natfoot@gmail.com</a><br></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 9:28 AM Chuck Sanders <<a href="mailto:nathhad@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">nathhad@gmail.com</a>> wrote:l<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>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!</div><div><br></div><div>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.<br></div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.<br></div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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?</div><div><br></div><div>Chuck</div><div>VA<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 12:30 AM Natfoot <<a href="mailto:natfoot@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">natfoot@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Sorry I saw your email in the ORM list and responded directly. <br>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. </div><div>. <a href="http://www.nprha.org/NP%20Track%20Segments%20of%20BNSF/BNSF%20Track%20Segments%20Version%2010.pdf" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.nprha.org/NP%20Track%20Segments%20of%20BNSF/BNSF%20Track%20Segments%20Version%2010.pdf</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>I'm on line segments, 403, 405, 408, and 411. <br>And I don't trust the FRA database to be accurate.</div><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Nathan P<br></div><div>email: <a href="mailto:natfoot@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">natfoot@gmail.com</a><br></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 8:45 PM Chuck Sanders <<a href="mailto:nathhad@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">nathhad@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">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.</span><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">You're not talking about the FRAARCID in the FRA dataset, right?</div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">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.</div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">Thanks!</div><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px" dir="auto"><div dir="auto">Chuck</div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 10:38 PM Natfoot <<a href="mailto:natfoot@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">natfoot@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Chuck,<br><br>Thank You for your time fixing the reporting marks section. <br><br>Railroad Line numbers do exist for railroads in the United States and Canada.
</div>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. <div><br></div><div> 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 <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer</a> <br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><br></div><div> 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. <br></div><div><br></div><div>Quote from your email:<br>" 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." </div><div><br></div><div> 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. </div><div> </div><div>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.<br> </div><div>Best Regards,</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div></div></div><div>Nathan P<br></div><div>email: <a href="mailto:natfoot@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">natfoot@gmail.com</a></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div></div></div>