Proposal:Unified ETCS Signals (railway)
The content of this proposal has been marked as archived to avoid confusion with the current version of the documentation.
To check whether the displayed page corresponds to the version at the time of archiving (end of voting),
the original revision can be accessed here: original compare with current
Proposal:Unified ETCS Signals (railway)
| The Feature Page for the approved proposal Unified ETCS Markers is located at [[1]] |
| Unified ETCS signals tagging | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Approved (active) |
| Proposed by: | AwFi |
| Applies to: | 
|
| Definition: | This proposal is meant to unify all the national ETCS markers tags into an harmonised tagging scheme valid everywhere. |
| Draft started: | 2025-12-03 |
| Proposed on: | 2025-12-20 |
| RFC start: | 2025-12-20 |
| Vote start: | 2026-03-01 15:00:00 (UTC) |
| Vote end: | 2026-03-14 14:59:59 (UTC) |
Problem Statement
ETCS is an European born signalling systems that is nowadays used all over the world. At the moment of the writing of this proposal, there are many ways to tag these signals that mostly differ by each state decision on how to tag them, but the markers are the same.
Pantograph and electrification markers are included in this proposal.
GSM-R signs might be another field of standardisation, if agreed.
Proposal
The proposal is to create a unified scheme of tagging so that independently of where the installation is, as the markers will be the same, it's possible to tag them easily. National signs to indicate the beginning of ETCS are not in this proposal since those are not standardised, but there is a suggestion to avoid some problems with multiple signals on the same location.
Existing tag schemes are for example:
- France:
- Stop marker:
railway:signal:train_protection=FR:REP_ETCS
- Stop marker:
- Italy:
- Stop marker:
railway:signal:train_protection=IT:ETCS:SM - Level transition:
railway:signal:train_protection=IT:ETCS:LT - Location marker:
railway:signal:train_protection=IT:ETCS:LM
- Stop marker:
- Belgium:
- Stop marker:
railway:signal:train_protection=BE:PRA(use type block marker, also triangle possible but for TVM. Separation needed, keep old tag only for TVM?)
- Stop marker:
- Finland:
- Stop marker:
railway:signal:train_protection=FI:T-600A(use type block marker) - Level transition:
railway:signal:train_protection=FI:T-602A
- Stop marker:
- Netherlands:
- Stop marker:
railway:signal:train_protection=NL:228(use type block marker, also triangle possible but for TVM. Separation needed, keep old tag only for TVM?)
- Stop marker:
- Poland:
- Stop marker:
railway:signal:train_protection=PL-PKP:wetcs10 - Location marker:
railway:signal:train_protection=PL-PKP:wetcs11
- Stop marker:
- Switzerland:
- Stop maker:
railway:signal:train_protection=ETCS2:stop_marker(use type block marker)
- Stop maker:
- United Kingdom
- Stop marker:
railway:signal:train_protection=GB-NR:ETCS(use type block marker)
- Stop marker:
- Germany
- Stop marker:
railway:signal:train_protection=DE-ESO:ne14 - Location marker:
railway:signal:train_protection=DE-ESO:blockkennzeichen(LZB block marker and ETCS location marker are tagged the same, would need separation)
- Stop marker:
All of these tag schemes would be deprecated in favour of the new harmonised ones proposed in the following part. Some of those would be left for LZB or TVM, but without ETCS indication function.
If there are missing tagging schemes, please add them.
Rationale
Having different tags for the same objects makes little sense if the only variable is the state of the state where said object falls, so unifying it should be something useful, also to allow easier comparisons and data processing. So the tagging scheme is simple: no national prefix, as it is something worldwide, and keep the tags simple and intuitive. All the markers use the names and functions of the official documentation[1].
Electrical marker are also standardised and included in this proposal.
Tagging
Main marker boards
-
ETCS transition marker -
Stop marker -
Location Marker
ETCS transition marker
Point where the transition to ETCS is possible or must be done.
railway:signal:train_protection:system_change=ETCS:level_transitionrailway:signal:train_protection:system_change:form=sign
ETCS stop marker
Marker to unambiguously identify a location that must not be passed without a MA (Movement Authority) or other equivalent instructions.
railway:signal:train_protection:main=ETCS:stop_markerrailway:signal:train_protection:main:form=sign
ETCS location marker
Marker to unambiguously identify a location that is not safety critical, might represent the EOA location (End of Authority).
railway:signal:train_protection:main=ETCS:location_markerrailway:signal:train_protection:main:form=sign
Electrical marker boards
-
Distant Begin of neutral section -
Begin of neutral section -
End of neutral section
Distant begin of neutral section
additionally:
Begin of neutral section
additionally:
End of Neutral section
additionally:
-
Distant lower pantograph -
Lower pantograph -
Raise pantograph
Distant Lower pantograph
additionally:
Lower pantograph
additionally:
Raise pantograph
additionally:
-
Distant end of catenary -
End of catenary
Distant end of catenary
additionally:
End of catenary
additionally:
Common tags
Standard railway signals tags and keys are not listed as it is out of the scope of this proposal and are very common and widely used (position, direction, ref, ...).
railway:signal:position=* can be used also to differentiate the arrow pointing to the left/right/down since the it is always pointing to the track.
Additionally some other tags that could be useful are listed below.
railway:signal:train_protection:main:caption=* optional field, might be the name of the locality for main marker boards, reference goes into ref=*
Possible problems
Sometimes the transition marker and the stop marker are located in the same pole, for this reason the tagging scheme changes slightly compared to the standard used as of now. This change helps to prevent many cases where level transition markers are on the same pole where stop markers are. "main" is used for stop/location markers as they have some similarities with main signals. "system change" is used to indicate a generic change of train protection system, using something broader than "level transition" that might be sketchy on other national train protection signals, in case this idea gets passed also to other train protection systems.
Examples
| Picture | Tags |
|---|---|
 |
Stop marker alone (in front):
|
| Level Transition with the other signals (on the back):
| |
 |
Level transition and stop marker on the same pole with other signals:
... [all other signals on the pole] ...
|
 |
Stop marker in a standalone installation:
|
 |
Level transition andother conventional signals on the same pole:
... [all other signals on the pole] ...
|
 |
Location markers in standalone application (valid for both):
|
Impact on Data Consumers
This change would impact https://openrailwaymap.app and https://openrailwaymap.org in the signalling/train protection layer, not rendering anymore the signals when migrated to this new scheme. At the same time, adding the support for this tagging scheme would ease the implementation of worldwide ETCS markers rendering, reducing complexity of having many different implementations for each state.
Features/Pages affected
All national signals pages with support for ETCS markers tagging.
External discussions
- https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rfc-feature-proposal-unified-etcs-signals-railway/139558
- https://github.com/hiddewie/OpenRailwayMap-vector/discussions/371
- OpenRailwayMap channel on OSM Discord server
Comments
Please comment on the discussion page.
References
Voting
I approve this proposal. --AwFi (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)- I approve this proposal. --Giopera (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Rokolell (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. If we could use the svg icons I made (the one's listed above - I had them measured in real life), I'd be really happy :) --Anas masuris (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Replied in the discussion section. --AwFi (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Wildmaps (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. As long as we can still keep some of the country-specific markers (such as the Polish level-transition ones, which specify the level and use the Polish railway font), I'm in. --TranslatorPS (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Replied in the discussion section. --AwFi (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --AlexTies (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Nospam2005 (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --AurélienQ (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --noeld (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Thanks for this, it will help Australia and New Zealand in paticular, were currently re-using the German tags which is a bit weird --Kylenz 04:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Sikal (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I have some comments regarding precise colours/design but that's an icon issue, not the tagging schema :) --Fgjgdrou (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Emiriku (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Vas111 (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Hiddewie (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. Does not address specific cases for combined operation. ETCS signals directly combined with signals (different from "Level transition and stop marker on the same pole with other signals" see above). ETCS also includes main, entry, block, and inserted signals. This is missing here. ETCS is a technical safety system, a technical solution (HW + SW), but not a signaling system. Here, you describe ETCS as signaling, but ETCS is a system. --HaPe-CZ (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Replied in the discussion section. --AwFi (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Detective-fiasco (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Voting on this proposal has been closed.
It was approved with 17 votes for, 1 vote against and 0 abstentions.