[Talk-us] Rail tagging in US (and North America): operator=* and reporting_marks=*

[Chuck Sanders]

Nathan,

I've been working to "broaden my horizons" as an east coast guy, and I can
see why it was probably confusing why I didn't understand your references
to line segment numbering.  I've been rooting around in BNSF and UP
timetables, and they really are used prominently over there.  Turns out
this is just a regional thing where I wasn't exposed to them - they're
here, generally, but they aren't used as consistently where I might've seen
them myself, and the line segment numbering itself doesn't show up in ETT's
or some of the track charts.  I must've looked obtuse - oops!  But I'm on
the right path now.

For the major east coast Class I's, NS still isn't using line segment
numbers in the latest ETT's I have for the region I work around.  They do
refer to line segments by name in the ETT, but to confuse matters, they
often group segments with multiple line segment numbers under a single line
segment name for reference in the ETT.  You have to root all the way into
the track charts to get to the number.  So for instance, they lump the line
segments for the Lamberts Point Branch and the Norfolk Terminal mainline
all together under "Lamberts Point to Canal Drive" in the 2008 ETT, but in
the 2009 track charts, that includes line segments 5010, 5022, and maybe
part of 5020.  They don't actually make it clear anywhere in even the track
charts where one LS ends and the next begins, they only list which line
segments are present on that chart page.  And they aren't using the actual
line segment numbers on the FRA crossing inventory forms, either, they're
just filling box 13 with the alpha character part of the mile marker
designation (e.g. "LP" for crossings on the Lamberts Point branch, with LP
mile markers).

I haven't done anything with CSX for ages, and don't have any of their
recent documentation.  I did grab a fairly recent ETT for my area online,
and they unfortunately don't reference the line segment numbers at all.  I
only see track charts online that are as old as my stuff, and they aren't
referencing them either, but those are ancient.  So far the best accessible
source of line segment numbers I've found for them are the crossing
inventory sheets - CSX is at least filling out Block 13 with the line
segment numbers like they're supposed to.  That may be our best source of
numbers for most mappers to use.  CSX's older track charts do sort out
sections according to an EIS# that appears analogous to the line segment
numbers used by others, but unfortunately when compared with any other
current documentation, they appear to have changed numbering systems, so
they may not be usable.  A much newer track chart from them would be a big
help.  (And unfortunately, finding out anything about their old EIS
numbering system from outside, after the fact, is almost impossible since
the acronym overlaps with modern environmental impact studies, which are
obviously the more common use of the term now.)

A lot of my local short lines aren't even filling out block 13 on the
crossing forms, so they'll be the biggest challenge.  The inconsistency is
a little frustrating.

So far the only one in a couple hours worth of looking around who are
actually consistent in all locations that I've looked at is BNSF - one
example is the Pikes Peak Sub (477), which they're consistently numbering
in the ETT and in block 13 of the inventory forms.  UP's numbering the LS
in the ETT but leaving block 13 blank.  I wish my guys out east were being
as consistent as BNSF.

Overall, though, I definitely agree with your assessment that these line
segment numbers are what belongs in the ref tag for us wherever we can find
it - thanks for helping me understand it!

Chuck
Virginia

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 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:
>
>> 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/20200615/f9438f71/attachment-0001.htm>