[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 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.

Thanks!

Chuck

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 3:10 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:l
>
>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20200613/13844476/attachment-0001.htm>