This proposal aims to create a harmonized tagging scheme for ETCS markers, a type of railway signals used in the European Train Control System. Currently, many national pages have different ways of tagging said markers, even if those are the same all around the world.
This proposal also introduces ETCS electrical markers.
With this tagging scheme the problem of the impossibility of tagging two markers in the same position should be solved. This is a big problem, as for example, “level transition” and “stop marker” are quite common to see together.
Hello, your work is very great and thankfull, I don’t see a thing to say.
Do you know if there already is a proposal about changing the way of mapping a signalization from railway:signalization's_name=yes/no something like: railway:signalization=signalization1;signalization2;... ?
Just a little reminder of this proposal in case someone intrested missed it.
Update since last week: In the first proposed version the standard tagging railway:signal:CATEGORY=TYPE was not there, so to comply with the standard, I added railway:signal:train_protection=ETCS:marker indicating that there’s a generic ETCS marker, the specific marker is then specified as before.
If you know someone who might be interested in this proposal, please let them know about this page.
Hi, welcome to the community!
First of all “EU” was disregarded a long time ago since ETCS is not just European but it’s used all across the world. Then I am not really convinced by your proposal, many times there are different signals from different “systems”, as you called them, on the same pole/location. So, with your proposal, it would become impossible to tag different signals from different “systems” in the same pole. Moreover some signals are not even part of some signalling system.
On point 4 I guess you don’t have a clear overview on the working process of the “state” value, as the “system” or state is already defined in the “main” or any other category of the signal field.
PS.
I guess you are using an LLM to generate your message, I would kindly ask to avoid that, I prefer writing to people, not AI. If your problem is with English, it’s fine to write in the language you prefer and provide a translation/let other people translate your message. My first language is clearly not English too.
I support a unified tagging of ETCS location marker and stop boards across boarders. Please put a link to the official standard somewhere in the wiki page though (https://www.era.europa.eu/system/files/2022-11/Harmonised%20ERTMS%20Marker%20Boards.pdf, though idk if this is the most recent version). Also please clarify that you want to remove current national tags and replace them with your scheme (in contrast to adding just more tags to the signals)
Hi, thanks for the feedback, I’ll add the reference to the official standard asap.
I would like to phase out all the national markers that are the same as the proposed ones, to not have signals that are the same but mapped in different ways. I’ll clarify it on the wiki page.
Some signals and markers related to ETCS (but not part of it) might remain in national tags as those are not standardised. Usually this happens with signals for the handover to and from ETCS.