[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 <natfoot at gmail.com> 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: natfoot at gmail.com
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 9:28 AM Chuck Sanders <nathhad at gmail.com> 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 <natfoot at gmail.com> 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: natfoot at gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 8:45 PM Chuck Sanders <nathhad at gmail.com> 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 <natfoot at gmail.com> 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: natfoot at gmail.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20200613/4d0c2176/attachment.htm>