Proposal:Railway:signal:*:shape
| railway:signal:*:shape | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Approved (active) |
| Proposed by: | Dakon |
| Applies to: | |
| Definition: | Allows to distinguish the visual appearance of railway signals that have the same meaning |
| Draft started: | 2021-02-11 |
| RFC start: | 2021-02-28 |
| Vote start: | 2021-04-20 |
| Vote end: | 2021-05-07 |
Proposal
Railway signals that are identical by meaning can have different visual appearance. This is not to be confused with railway:signal:*:form, which denotes e.g. if a given signal is a light signal or a semaphore, but to further specify different signals that have otherwise the same tagging. For every "main" tag of signal, e.g. railway:signal:main or railway:signal:distant, there may be a subtag *:shape that gives the visual appearance of that specific signal. The combination of both values should be unique, i.e. it is feasible to use the same value in *:shape for different signal types or different values of railway:signal:*, but the combination must make sense. Combinations used should be documented on the appropiate tagging pages. When a specific signal has only one form no *:shape should be used.
Renderers may entirely ignore this and draw a default shape for all signals, or may support any subset of *:shape values they need.
As railway signals are nodes, this applies only to nodes, and only to those tagged with other railway:signal:* keys.
Rationale
Railway signals can have different visual shapes depending e.g. on their age or location. One example are the German H/V light signals where at least 3 generations exist: the original version with 2 red lights above each other, the intermediate version with 2 red lights besides each other and the green light in the top center, and the compact version with 2 red lights besides each other and the green light aligned to the left. The corresponding distant signals have 2 generations, the classical octagonal version and the compact rectangular version. The same holds true for many other signals in different countries. For operational purposes all of these signals are identical.
The need for this tagging arose when the ETCS stop markers on the high speed lines in the Netherlands should be rendered correctly on the map. There are also 2 generations of these signs, one used on the line to Belgium, the other one used on the line to Germany. The latter is visually identical to the corresponding German signal, so all these signals were tagged as German signals to get them shown on the OpenRailwayMap signal layer because that did not know about the NL:227b signal value. It was proposed to render the NL:227b signal with the other shape then. This is tagging for the renderer, these are in fact not German signals. Adding the :shape subtag resolved this issue in a proper way.
Tagging
Examples
| Image | Description | Tagging | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| German H/V light signals, classical shape | railway:signal:distant=DE-ESO:vr | ||
| German H/V light signals in "compact" shape, the lower one is a Vr signal | railway:signal:distant=DE-ESO:vr | ||
| ETCS stop marker in triangle form | railway:signal:train_protection=NL:227b | used in the Netherlands on the highspeed line from Amsterdam to Antwerp | |
| ETCS stop marker in arrow form (German signal) | railway:signal:train_protection=NL:227b | used in the Netherlands on the freight line from Rotterdam to Germany |
Rendering
This depends on the signal that is specified by this subtag. At the beginning the OpenRailwayMap signal style can show the correct form of the NL:227b signal on the international lines in the Netherlands, see PR 702.
Features/Pages affected
External discussions
Discussion on OpenRailwayMap lists that lead to this proposal
Voting
I approve this proposal. This seems to fill a needed gap in tagging. I find it concise, well-thought-out and reasonable. --Stevea (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)- I approve this proposal. --AnakinNN (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. not entirely happy with "classic" value but have no better ideas. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's just one specific kind of singnals in German. You are free to specify different values for signals in Poland or anywhere else where you know such details. For example, for signals in Russia there are no verbal definitions for shapes, so I plan to use colour abbreviations for them. For example, these 2 dwarf signals have shapes YR-GB and GR-YB, and these 4 - YXY-WR, YRY-XW, YRY-XWX, XRX-YWY (Red, Yellow, Green, White, X for stub). --AnakinNN (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Linie29 (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Gscscnd (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Joker234 (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --bjoern_m (talk) 10:02, 02 May 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. So I can start using shape=DarthVader, Shape=trilight, shape=twolight, or shape=searchlight? --Natfoot footnat (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. —-Emiriku (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Mapper999 (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --JJJWegdam (talk) 8:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Gallseife (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)gallseife
- I approve this proposal. --Nakaner (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Voting on this proposal has been closed.
It was approved with 13 votes for, 0 votes against and 0 abstentions.
Comments
Please comment on the discussion page.