This revert has been reverted:
changeset/77641554

Note to the author of 77636565:
please refer to
osm.wiki/Revert_scripts#Act_responsibly.21
and provide room for discussion before reverting a changeset

Revert reverted 🤷‍♂️
changeset/77641554

Note to the author of 77636565:
please refer to
osm.wiki/Revert_scripts#Act_responsibly.21
and provide room for discussion before reverting a changeset

This revert was done without providing any possibility to discuss the original changeset.

Apparently it is now common practise that we revert an entire changeset if not all changes are mentioned in the changeset description. Even more so that such a revert happens without any room for discussion.

Island is om aan te geven dat het een polder is. Aangezien er geen goeie tag is voor polder, heb ik bedacht dat een polder eigenlijk niks anders is dan een kunstmatig eiland in een meer. Vaak is de omtrek van het meer nog te zien in de vorm van de ringvaart.

Graag gedaan. Wijzigingenset is overigens onderdeel van detaillering Betuweroute.

Ik was me niet helemaal bewust van het verschil tussen deze tags. Bedankt voor de uitleg.

Hallo Leo,
Hier ben ik dezer dagen inderdaad aan het editen. Ik was er van op de hoogte dat deze lijn per abuis was blijven staan. Beetje coulance zou fijn zijn 😬

Good afternoon,
This changeset removed train protection tags from railways in Rotterdam. The tags (like railway:etcs) are described on osm.wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging.

Please roll back this changeset and try to redo it without removing these tags.

Thank you in advance

Good afternoon Toni,

Thanks for the heads-up. I’ll have another look at the changeset, to fix the relations. If there’s any other changeset I should review, please let me know.

To provide some context: I’m working on [this map](https://www.openrailwaymap.org/mobile.php?lang=null&lat=48.8936153614802&lon=9.55810546875&zoom=5&style=signals) to provide an overview of European train protection systems. I’m currently working on PZB/LZB. This system is available both in Germany and Eastern Europe. In Eastern Europe, many railway Ways don’t have Relations on them which is sortof a luxury when editing. I probably forgot to be more carefull with this edit in Germany (which has many Relations). Apologies for the inconvenience.

Best regards,
JJJ

Very nicely detailled. However it is not recommended to end buildings at roof alignment. Please try to end buildings at the end of the ownership boundaries.

Further explanation:
osm.wiki/Buildings#Don.27t_tag_for_the_renderer

Best practise example:
osm.org/#map=18/52.37361/4.90184

Ok sure. Feel free to edit it as you please

Certainly.
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceneri-Basistunnel
Tunnels under construction are allowed to have a maxspeed tag with the planned operational speed.

Geen probleem hoor! Iedereen hier is ooit begonnen. Welkom

De wijzigingensets die ik hier tot nu toe heb gedaan, heb ik allemaal via een mobiele app gedaan. Daar is de keuze uit luchtfoto’s helaas beperkt.

Ik probeer het met PDOK zo goed mogelijk te doen, maar als je aanpassingen hebt mag dat altijd natuurlijk

Dear Michael,

Thanks for your views. Due to the amount of different points you mention, I'll answer you in parts.

On the matter of discussion. I didn't discuss this prior to the changeset, on purpose. This because no centrally approved platform is present for such discussions. We may use the country specific mailing list, the openrailwaymap mailing list, the OSM forum, the Talk-DE forum, etc, etc. For this reason, I simply started with a overseeable amount of changes, in order to see if discussions would start. I can discuss here with the people who are involved, so I think the approach works. In the worst case, I was willing to revert my own changes. Therefore I think the strategy is harmless.

On the matter of main/branch usage. The reason for my approach was to tag by real usage, rather than by workrules. It allowed for better visibility of different train services like in this example https://ibb.co/VxK9d60. It would seem inconvenient to me to use the usage tag in such a way, in Germany, but I respect that different countries have different systems for this.

On the matter of usage=industrial: the way you describe that tag matches the service=spur tag. At the openrailwaymap tagging page we may read: <usage = main is meant for> "Lines, that serve only goods transport." and <service = spur is meant for> "Mostly short tracks leading from railway lines to industrial areas.". Private usage is only mentioned at usage=* and not at the ORM tagging page. I would prefer to have a seperate usage tag for freight-only tracks and I think that Industrial is a tag which fulfills that function. Could you perhaps elaborate on your view on this matter?

On the matter of light-rail I settle with coupling the tag to things like the example of the different power source, like you mentioned. The ICE you mentioned was not present at openbusmap.org, so I think that relation might be missing.

In summary: I would advise against the apparent German interpretation of the usage tag and I agree on your views on the light_rail tag.

Best regards,
Jeroen

Good morning,

Thank you for your comment. It allows to discuss this matter more thoroughly, before we decide to revert or continue.

The reason for my changesets is the very high amount of usage=main railways in the Ruhr Area. Feel free to have a look at openrailwaymap.org. I therefore have looked carefully at the transport systems in there and I concluded that we can make it a lot more understandable. Many lines are for regional routes only (usage=branch). I perceive Regio Express and RegionalBahn as suitable for such tagging.

Your commentary is about the S-Bahn however. The reason for the choice of the light_rail tag is that I’ve travelled with S-Bahn’s that are clearly light rail. Take for example Berlin and Hamburg that are both tagged as accordingly. I propose that the Rhein-Ruhr network should receive this tag aswell, because of consistency and to underline the seperate network brand. This is still the case while I acknowledge the S-Bahn tracks as being full-scale railways.

I will wait with further changesets and would appreciate your further opinion.

Kind regards,
Jeroen

Dat dat nodig was is natuurlijk niet de bedoeling. Ik denk dat het hier mis is gegaan omdat er wat ways met routes opgeknipt moesten worden. Ik zal er in het vervolg beter op letten.

De stopposition stond eerst ter hoogte van een wissel, wat natuurlijk niet kan want dan is je wissel waardeloos. Ik ben rond deze tijd alle wissels en seinen aan het invoegen en dit is een vaker voorkomende fout bij perrons met A / B deel. Dit edit ik in JOSM door simpelweg de stop position ergens anders te copy pasten en de oorspronkelijke weg te halen.

Aangezien dit niet super regelmatig voor komt binnen dit project, had ik er niet aan gedacht om de members van de relation nog even goed te sorteren. Hier heb ik overigens wel op gelet toen alle railway ways zijn vervangen.

Hello Trockennasenaffe,

It is plausible that the signalling data in the abroad part of the Dutch database is outdated. I immediately believe it. Signals have been added in Herzogenrath and Kaldenkirchen. Emmerich, Gronau (Westfalen), Bad Bentheim, Emlichheim and Leer (Ostfriesland) will be added later.

I’d apperciate it if you could check Kaldenkirchen aswell. For Herzogenrath: do you prefer me to remove my data there, or do you wish to edit it yourself?

Best regards

They refer to the same thing. Either the wiki is wrong or the 83 tags are wrong. I’ll ask the OpenRailwayMap community