> The "designated timetable locations" fall into a category that doesn't quite fit with OSM's tagging scheme and I've noticed that using the "junction" tag is the convention that the community in North America seems to have settled into

It's a false convention. The tag `railway=junction` should only be used for actual junctions.

> With that being said, if you think there's a more appropriate designation for these that I may have overlooked, I'm willing to hear it.

I talked with other mappers and all agree that `railway=junction` is not the proper tag.
I concur that these aren't actual stations, and more designated locations/control points.

> It also has the bonus of making them show up more prominently on Open Railway Map, where the information is most desired.

That would be tagging for the renderer, since it's not the proper tagging being used.

> With respect to the node I added in Lorette, it's the precise location of the station name sign marking the designated location of Lorette at mile 152.4 of the Trois-Rivières subdivision, and is meant to be separate from the nearby "locality" node.

The locality node actually refers to the "station" if you check out it's entry in the Banque de noms de lieux du Québec, or even the Canadian Geographical Names Database.

A locality point can refer to a railway site/junction.

> These are the operating locations that appear in railway employee timetables, which are mostly private, though there are some public avenues to obtain this information

Are you able to provide the source? Because time tables aren't necessarilly approved sources to use as they are private and most likely copyrighted.

See osm.wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging_in_North_America#Private_Data

---

The railway tagging is very euro-centric (in fact it's very much based on German practices as the original authors were German), and we mappers of North America have to untangle the differences in meanings and conventions.

Unless there is an actual junction, these should most likely be tagged as `railway=site`
osm.wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging#Other_operating_sites

I suggest that you refer to osm.wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging_in_North_America
osm.wiki/Canada/Railways

There are a good deal of railway mappers present in the OpenStreetMap US Slack https://slack.openstreetmap.us/

And as always, there is also the community forum where things can be discussed.

Hello, Thank you for your edits adding the `junction:ref` tag!

Could you please make sure to update the rest of the exit ramp when you edit tags for destination and `junction:ref` instead of only the first way that branches off

Bonjour, la communauté Québecoise désire utiliser les noms francophones pour les opérateurs.

changeset/170857543

Bonjour, merci de rajouter des données ferroviaires dans osm.

Il ne faut pas utiliser `railway=junction` pour tous les points désignés sauf s'il s'agit réellement d'une jonction ferroviaire. Voir osm.wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging#Operating_site_types

Le point que tu as rajouter node/13078361864/
est déjà present par l'import de CanVec node/1201245967

Aussi, vous avez indiquer seulement Bing comme source, comment avez vous trouver ces noms? Il serait bien de l'indiquer

If your preferred language is English, that is no problem, I just assumed since some of your changeset comments are in french and you are editing in Quebec

Please don't change the road classification, the community consensus is that this is not a trunk road, and should be left as-is.

changeset/167597979

Please don't change the road name.
That portion is not named Boulevard Lacroix.
It has been confirmed on the ground

changeset/167597961

Your changeset has been reverted.

Community consensus is that this road is not a trunk road. Please do not re-tag it as so

Please read the following community discussion
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/route-du-president-kennedy-saint-georges-to-maine-usa-trunk-road-or-not/117398

Hello,
Please make sure to connect all taxiways together, and not leave them hanging.

Don't simply mark all markings on a taxiway as a taxiway

Hello,
It seems that you have broken the boundary relation for Middleton Park.

Some boundary lines were split, and aren't connected anymore.

Actually, Metrolinx has already disclosed the type of electrification in their documentation.
https://assets.metrolinx.com/image/upload/v1737998921/Documents/Engineering/CPG_Performance_Specifications_for_ET_EW.pdf

Section 1.2

« The Metrolinx Electrification system shall be a 2 x 25 kV ac (1 x 25 kV ac in the limits of the Pearson
subdivision), 60 Hz autotransformer traction electrification system. »

I'm not the one who originally added that. I just made sure it was consistently tagged.

Hi, indeed it was simply a typo, and `access=private` was meant. I have fixed it

Yup! Thanks for the fix!

Hello,

Please don't map fictional routing of railways.
There isn't *any* concrete route selected yet for Alto. The project hasn't even been approved for construction yet, and won't be up for approval for another 4-5 years.

Once a route has been selected, then feel free to map it.

Thank you

changeset/163346800

Hello,

Please don't map fictional routing of railways.
There isn't *any* concrete route selected yet for Alto. The project hasn't even been approved for construction yet, and won't be up for approval for another 4-5 years.

Once a route has been selected, then feel free to map it.

Thank you

changeset/163346800

Hello,

Please don't map fictional routing of railways.
There isn't *any* concrete route selected yet for Alto. The project hasn't even been approved for construction yet, and won't be up for approval for another 4-5 years.

Once a route has been selected, then feel free to map it.

Thank you

changeset/163346800

> En ce qui a trait aux autres éléments, je comprends que les développeurs de OpenRailwayMap, dans le but de développer une carte spécialisée des infrastructures, on écrit des pages wiki et voudraient que les autres contributeurs suivent ces règles adaptées à leurs besoins.

Les wiki Nord-Americains ont étés écrits par des utilisateurs, et non les développeurs.

Le domaine des chemins de fer est vastement différent qu'en Allemagne ou le tagging a pris naissance. C'est normal qu'il ai des particularités différentes.

> À noter que la clé name sert d'abord à décrire une ligne précise lorsque réservée à un seule usage (exemple train de banlieu xxx). Sinon, les subdivisions ne sont connues que par les spécialistes des chemins de fer.

Même si les sudivisions ne sont pas connus par le public en général, c'est le nom de la voie. C'est le consensus Nord-Americain.

> Je ne sais pour les États-Unis, mais au Québec et au Canada, les propriétaires et opérateurs des infrastructures sont bien connus et la population connait les propriétaires des voies mais n'a aucune connaissance du concept plus abstrait de subdivision.

Selon cette même logique, on ne devrait pas inclure les numéros de circuits sur les lignes électriques puisque le public ne le sait pas?

Juste parce que le public ne connais pas le nom des subdivisions on devrait inclure l’opérateur principal dans le nom, ou simplement enlever le nom de la subdivision et seulement avoir le nom de l’opérateur principal?

Je t'invite a relire le wiki, osm.wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging_in_North_America#Ways
Car ça n'as pas l'air que tu en a pris en compte dans ta réponse.

Bonjour Pierre,

Il semble que plusieurs erreurs se sont glissées dan ton changeset. Notamment le rajout de `network:wikipedia=fr:Exo (réseau de transport)` sur plusieurs éléments, dont des relations de route et aiguillages qui ne devrait pas en avoir.

Taguer les opérateurs dans le champ `name=*` va à l’encontre de Name est juste le nom [1], des directives de tagging ferroviaire nord-américaines [2], et est considéré comme taguer pour le rendu [3].

Bien que vous puissiez voir le nom de l’opérateur sur les panneaux, cela ne fait pas partie du nom de la voie.

Quant au champ `operator=*`, il doit contenir une liste délimitée par des points-virgules de tous les opérateurs, entièrement épelés, en commençant par l’opérateur/propriétaire principal. Les marques de rapport ne doivent pas être incluses dans ce champ. [4]

Voir aussi https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/pull/10468
Voir aussi, le wiki des chemins de fer canadiens où nous avons commencé à documenter tous les chemins de fer au Canada [5].

[1] osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only
[2] osm.wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging_in_North_America#Ways
[3] osm.wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging_in_North_America#Tagging_for_the_renderer
[4] osm.wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging_in_North_America#Operator_and_Owner
[5] osm.wiki/Canada/Railways

Hi,
Thank you for improcing the geometry of railways!

The way that you have conducted the import breaks the spirit of the OSM community. Deleting data when not keeping it's history/existing data should be a last resort.

I encourage you to get familiar with the Replace Geometry function in JOSM the next time you wish to do a similar edit. osm.wiki/JOSM/Plugins/utilsplugin2#Replace_geometry_(Ctrl+Shift+G)

I posted on the community forums so that a more experienced user could restore the data you have deleted while using your updated geometry. https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/railway-import-north-bend-boston-bar-bc/123412

La mention du nom n'apparait pas dans l'article wikipedia dont tu as partager, mais plutôt un article connexe. Ça serait pas mal de lier au bon article la prochaine fois.

Le nom fait aussi référence a la compagnie Chemin de Fer Charlevoix, et d’habitude on ne retrouve pas sa comme nom de voie.

Selon la carte de Rail Association of Canada, c'est toujours la Subdivision Charlevoix.

Alors ça sème la confusion.