German shunting signals attached to vs. integrated into main signals

[EHCG04]

German shunting signals integrated into main signals are not rendered quite right.

They are always shown with a separate icon, even if integrated into the main signal‘s screen.

There are main signals with separate shunting signals mounted to the mast in their own enclosure, see here, but these are rare (and not tagged any different, see this node corresponding to the picture linked above).

In my opinion, the current way of rendering an integrated Sh 1 / Ra 12 should therefore not be used as it is misleading and results in shunting signals dominating the map.

Proposition for a solution:

• do not render shunting signals at main signals in the map view
• move them to the Pop-up*
• render only those apart from main signals

This makes sense, as shunting signals can be expected to be present on all light signals in stations, with the exception of entry signals. Terms and conditions apply, as generalised statements regarding German railway infrastructure are always inapplicable.

*perhaps in a table view, would be useful for Zs 1 / Zs 8 too. E. g.:

Signal	Y/N
Sh 1 / Ra 12	✅
Zs 1	✅
Zs 7
Zs 8	✅

[besentv]

This makes sense, as shunting signals can be expected to be present on all signals in stations, with the exception of entry signals.

This is just not true. There are stations, especially on branch lines, where the non entry signals don't have any shunting signals.

[Anasmasuris]

In PL we have integrated shunting signals into main/combined (the lower white light cell is responsible for that), so wouldn't adding the shunting signals (DE-ESO:...) to railway:signal:main/combined:states=* resolve that? I mean that would allow to differentiate between integrated and solo shunting signals.

[hiddewie]

Yes, integrated signals could be tagged as additional states on the main/combined signals. Separate signals are then tagged as railway:signal:shunting=*.

We have the same problem in the Netherlands actually where a shunting lamp integrated into a main/minor signal is also tagged as a separate shunting signal, causing similar problems in the interpretation/rendering of the tagging.

[EHCG04]

This is just not true. There are stations, especially on branch lines, where the non entry signals don't have any shunting signals.

Yes, there are exceptions. This is why I used the wording "can can expected to" ("es ist anzunehmen/erwartbar, dass"), which is different from "always have" ("haben immer") ;)
I have nonetheless appended the original issue's second-to-last sentence in this regard.

You have a point, it was my intent to spark a discussion whether this may be acceptable as the lesser of two evils.

[EHCG04]

Yes, integrated signals could be tagged as additional states on the main/combined signals. Separate signals are then tagged as railway:signal:shunting=*.

This would be the optimal solution. Do I understand correctly that, working with how the tagging is right now, this is not possible?

[besentv]

This is just not true. There are stations, especially on branch lines, where the non entry signals don't have any shunting signals.

Yes, there are exceptions. This is why I used the wording "can can expected to" ("es ist anzunehmen, dass"), which is different from "always have" ("haben immer") ;)

Alrighty. 😄

You have a point though, it was my intent to spark a discussion whether this may be acceptable as the lesser of two evils.

I'm generally not opposed to the idea of moving the shunting signal into a popup.

I'd even go as far as saying that railway:signal:minor=DE-ESO:sh1 is a horrible tag and should be removed for the Polish way of tagging these.

One downside for mappers is, that you lose a quick way of checking if the shunting signal tagging is correct. Meaning, with a popup, you'd need to click on every signal to check for this.

[hiddewie]

Apart from the tagging discussion: to visualize the signals in this OpenRailwayMap, the tagging needs to be distinct to render a different icon/feature on the map.

There are main signals with separate shunting signals mounted to the mast in their own enclosure, [...] but these are rare (and not tagged any different [...]

If the shunting signals are not tagged differently if they are integrated or not, then there is no way to distinguish them during the rendering of the map.

There are 2 options to make it work:

• Integrate the shunting state into the main/combined signal tagging. Then there is a railway:signal:main=* with several more states.
• Leave the shunting signal tagged separately (so the signal has both railway:signal:main=* and railway:signal:shunting=*), but add a tag that identifies an integrated shunting signal.

Personally I think the first option is nicer, because to me an integrated signal is a single "thing" in the real world and that matches the OSM tagging guidelines to tag what is visible on the ground.

For the second option, this could be added as a special case in the signal features in the https://github.com/hiddewie/OpenRailwayMap-vector/blob/master/features/signals_railway_signals.yaml file. An example is

OpenRailwayMap-vector/features/signals_railway_signals.yaml

Lines 192 to 199 in 98aa4f0

	- description: Hauptsignal (abfahrt)
	country: AT
	icon: { default: 'at/hauptsignal-abfahrt' }
	tags:
	- { tag: 'railway:signal:main', value: 'AT-V2:hauptsignal' }
	- { tag: 'railway:signal:main:form', value: 'light' }
	- { tag: 'railway:signal:departure', value: 'AT-V2:abfahrt' }
	- { tag: 'railway:signal:departure:form', value: 'light' }

(AT signal) which is a single feature that combines both a main and departure signal, and is rendered as a single feature/icon. In that case, when a match is found, no further main and departure signals will be matched / rendered on the map for that signal node.

[Anasmasuris]

So, to continue the thread, I'd suggest changing the semaphores, where the shunting signal is integrated (adding DE-ESO:sh1 to railway:signal:main/combined:states) and leaving those rare (separate) semaphores as they are. Possibly, you could create an icon, showing that a semaphore can display shunting signal - this is a suggestion; the icon has a black background, which doesn't allow to show blank/unlit cells (look: PL signals, where the number of cells is clearly visible).

In QGIS, you can add a string to existing variable string value by || (eg. "A" || ";B" results in "A;B"), but I don't know, how to do that in JOSM

[besentv]

I wonder, can Polish Sr signals (Mechanical Hp signals in Germany) have a seperate lamp for Ms1,2 (Sh 0,1)? If so, how are these tagged?

[Anasmasuris]

The only light that mechanical semaphores in PL have is for substitute signal - it's added on the same node as railway:signal:substitute_signal=PL-PKP:sz. From the stations that I've visited and tagged, I haven't seen a shunting signal on mechanical semaphores (the railway documentation doesn't even show that such combination exists)

Example irl (Bogaczewo): https://www.bazakolejowa.pl/index.php?dzial=stacje&id=725&ed=0&okno=galeria&photoid=217214

The shunting or distant signal can appear separately in close distance of semaphore (either mechanical or light) - the examples I know are Jaworzyna Śląska: https://www.bazakolejowa.pl/index.php?dzial=stacje&id=329&ed=0&okno=galeria&str=4&photoid=96042) and Starogard Gdański (https://www.bazakolejowa.pl/index.php?dzial=stacje&id=65&ed=0&okno=galeria&str=4&photoid=217916)
But since those two objects are considered separate signals (and possibly controlled independently), I've tagged them as separate.
(I assume those could be merged with reference number looking like eg. J / Tm2

[hiddewie]

I am going to convert this issue to a discussion in the Tagging category. Once the discussion is resolved, and the integrated shunting signals in OSM are retagged to the new form, we can have a new issue to implement rendering for the new tagging.