Home » railML newsgroups » railml.infrastructure » Platforms and ramps for railML 2.2
Platforms and ramps for railML 2.2 [message #283] Thu, 22 March 2012 22:19 Go to next message
Christian Rahmig is currently offline  Christian Rahmig
Messages: 151
Registered: January 2011
Senior Member
Hello everyone,

considering the Trac ticket #122 [1], we are thinking about the
introduction of a datatype for platforms and ramps with the next release
2.2. So, this is how it may look like:

1. <trackElements> will be extended with a new element named
<serviceSection> for modelling platforms, ramps and related facilities.

2. The new element <serviceSection> describes the part ("section") of a
track, which can be used for the exchange of passengers, goods or similar.

3. Attributes for this new element include:
- position information: defines the starting position and direction
of the serviceSection
- length: the section length which is defined as the actually usable
length (NOT the physically existing platform/ramp which can be longer)
- height: the objects's height in mm above rails (for feasible types
only)
- type: enumeration of
"platform" (passanger platform)
"ramp" (ramp for loading / unloading goods)
"maintenance" (maintenance facilities e. g. in a depot)
"loadingFacility" (Goods can be (un-)loaded from the wagon's
top / underfloor)
"cleaning" (washing facility for cars and engines)
"fueling" (facility for re-fuelling of engines)
"parking" (section for parking of rolling stock)
"preheating" (electricity or steam for pre-heating purposes)
"other"
- side: right, left (seen in positive mileage direction)

4. Each <serviceSection> can have multiple types. Tracks with platforms
on both sides need two <serviceSection> elements to force the definition
of different platform names.

5. Additional semantics:
- name: the name contains the platform number (e.g. "3")
- The associated OCP can be de-referenced from the OCP's <trackGroup>

It would be nice to hear your opinion about this model approach. Are
there any important parameters missing?

Best regards.

[1] https://trac.assembla.com/railML/ticket/122

---
Christian Rahmig
railML.infrastructure coordinator
Re: Platforms and ramps for railML 2.2 [message #286 is a reply to message #283] Mon, 26 March 2012 12:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dirk Bräuer is currently offline  Dirk Bräuer
Messages: 212
Registered: August 2008
Senior Member
Hallo Christian and all others,

your suggestion about platforms sounds good. Especially about
> - The associated OCP can be de-referenced from the OCP's <trackGroup>
I think this is very important and not to be missed.

Concerning
> - name: the name contains the platform number (e.g. "3")
we have to take into account that, in some countries like Czech Republic,
to distinguish between a platform name and a 'track at platform' name (in
German we would say "Bahnsteigkante"). I am not aware whether the 'track
at platform' name is always the same as the operational track number
(which would make it easier). But since you want to assign the
<serviceSection> to a certain track, the Czech principle means that there
will be two <serviceSections> sharing the same name (which then means that
they share the same physical platform at opposite sides).

Additionally, I want to remember to Susanne's post from 2011-11-04 where
she pleads for a stop markers (Haltetafeln) in RailML. I think that the
following has to be possible:
- to link a platform with an ocp (as you have already written),
- to link stop markers with the associated platform,
- to link a train's stop with a stop marker and therefore with a platform,
- to define the relation between a train position (front, end, first
door...) and the stop marker (and therefore the platform).
All these links shall be done by references (meaning syntactically forced
as long as these information are provided in a RailML file at all).

To make it more easier in RailML, I think that it is not important to have
a general base type for platforms, ramps and maintenance facilities. A
platform is (in my opinion) such a familiar phenomen to all railways that
we can provide a special type for it.

All in all, my recommendation is:
- to define an element called 'platform marker' with the attributes (you
suggested) 'length', 'direction', 'height', 'platformName',
'platformTrackName', 'validForTrainLenghs'. The marker may be in the
middle of the platform so that we may have two lengths and two directions.
With 'validForTrainLenghs' I mean the typical additional plates with "100
m" or so written on it.
- to define an optional reference from an ocpTT to a 'platform marker'
with the relation of a position in the train (front, end, first door...)..

This leaves the ramps, loading- and maintenance facilities for other
elements so far.

We still have the problem Susanne wrote, where several coupled train parts
may have inconsistent 'platform relations' (e. g. The first train part
says 'I want to stop with my front at the end of the platform' and the
last train part says 'I want to stop with my end at the beginning of the
platform'. This may be functional if the platform length is the same as
the train length but if not... it creates at least a gap in the train or,
more worst, a gap in the space-time-continuum.)

However, we shall consider that train parts may have different operating
days. So it may definitely make sense if all train parts want to stop at
the end of the platform because there may be days when each of the train
parts is the first one in the train. Considering this, we shall leave the
inconsistent cases to the reading software - we cannot save us from
everything and there are more worst possible inconsistencies in RailML.

With best regards,
Dirk.


---
Am 22.03.2012, 22:19 Uhr, schrieb Christian Rahmig
<coord(at)infrastructurerailmlorg>:

> Hello everyone,
>
> considering the Trac ticket #122 [1], we are thinking about the
> introduction of a datatype for platforms and ramps with the next release
> 2.2. So, this is how it may look like:
>
> 1. <trackElements> will be extended with a new element named
> <serviceSection> for modelling platforms, ramps and related facilities..
>
> 2. The new element <serviceSection> describes the part ("section") of a
> track, which can be used for the exchange of passengers, goods or
> similar.
>
> 3. Attributes for this new element include:
> - position information: defines the starting position and direction
> of the serviceSection
> - length: the section length which is defined as the actually usable
> length (NOT the physically existing platform/ramp which can be longer)
> - height: the objects's height in mm above rails (for feasible types
> only)
> - type: enumeration of
> "platform" (passanger platform)
> "ramp" (ramp for loading / unloading goods)
> "maintenance" (maintenance facilities e. g. in a depot)
> "loadingFacility" (Goods can be (un-)loaded from the wagon's
> top / underfloor)
> "cleaning" (washing facility for cars and engines)
> "fueling" (facility for re-fuelling of engines)
> "parking" (section for parking of rolling stock)
> "preheating" (electricity or steam for pre-heating purposes)
> "other"
> - side: right, left (seen in positive mileage direction)
>
> 4. Each <serviceSection> can have multiple types. Tracks with platforms
> on both sides need two <serviceSection> elements to force the definition
> of different platform names.
>
> 5. Additional semantics:
> - name: the name contains the platform number (e.g. "3")
> - The associated OCP can be de-referenced from the OCP's <trackGroup>
>
> It would be nice to hear your opinion about this model approach. Are
> there any important parameters missing?
>
> Best regards.
>
> [1] https://trac.assembla.com/railML/ticket/122
>
> ---
> Christian Rahmig
> railML.infrastructure coordinator


--
Erstellt mit Operas revolutionärem E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/
joined continue: "Platforms and ramps for railML 2.2" and "Haltetafel / stop post" [message #292 is a reply to message #286] Wed, 04 April 2012 19:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dirk Bräuer is currently offline  Dirk Bräuer
Messages: 212
Registered: August 2008
Senior Member
....here we are again from the neighbouring thread.
This is the continuation of both the topics "Platforms and ramps for
railML 2.2" and "Haltetafel / stop post" as ordered by the overall "Lady
Of Common RailML".

> So I suggest defining a new ocsElement named <stopPost>. Like the other
> ocsElements, it is an optional element and it will be placed in a
> container <stopPosts>.:

I agree.

> Further attributes for describing the stop post may be optional:
> - "serviceSectionRef" for referencing the service section, where the
> stop post is situated.
> - "stopPostType" for specifying the stop post element.

I agree with your suggestion and also with Susanne's advice:

> Please do not repeat the elements' name in the attribute. 'Type' is
> often used for 'datatype'. Let's find a more concise term. Which
> enumeration should be offered behind this attribute?

I don't think that we should name it 'type' at all. We should give it only
attributes for these properties which are really (physically) existing at
the sign post itself. Any properties which rely to the platform rather
then to the stop post should be written at the <serviceSection> or
<platform> element.

The attributes of a stop post should be from my side:
--> "id"
--> "pos"
--> "serviceSectionRef" (optional, see below)
--> direction (at the track - up or down) (mandatory)
--> additional conditions (this relies to Susannes train length, axle
count, wagon count, verbal remark) (optional)
--> 'sign code' or 'rule number' or so (this shall allow to define the
'Ne5' or 'So8' of DS/DV301 or something like that)
--> valid for train categories (categoryRefs, none, one or more)

Concerning the attributes, we should ask us the questions:
- Should it be possible to define a <stopPost> as 'virtual'? Virtual
means that there is no real stop post sign but it is a place where one
could or should stay (where trains have to stop). This may be important
for the reference of a train to a <stopPost>: If a train has to stop at a
platform where there is no <stopPost> (may be because the starter signal
directly standing at the end or simply because somebody of DB Projektbau
has forgotten to plan it) - what shall the <trainPart> in RailML do? My
recommendation: Allow virtual <stopPosts> with an attribute

--> "virtual" (Boolean).

- Do we want to include an attribute whether the <stopPost> is valid for
shunting movements and/or trains? This would include the German "Ra10"
into stop posts. In Germany, we do normally not think that a Ra10 is a
Haltetafel but one could have the opinion that the word Halttafel does
include "RangierHALTTAFEL" ;-). However, in other countries these
"shunting limits" may be more naturally stop posts. I would recommend to
include them, which brings us to an attribute

--> "validForMovements" (enumeration: FreightTrains, PassengerTrains,
AllTrains, Shunting, both?).

(It is all 'Arbeitstitel' only.)

The reason for "PassengerTrains" and "AllTrains" is: In Germany normally a
H-Tafel is valid for passenger trains only except if there is no starter
signal in the track where it is valid for all trains.

> - train length
> - axle count
> - wagon count
> - verbal definition (S-Bahn Berlin)
> Does anybody know, whether only one of the above constraints may be
> defined or also combinations of them occur?

In Germany, only a train length is allowed in nowadays. But there may be
axle count at older signs or in other countries.

We should allow combinations to ease future discussions...

> Connected with the last two attributes, the following two questions need
> to be answered:
> 1. Does any stop post exist, which is not referenced to a service
> section (or platform)?

Yes, of course. There are stop posts in tracks w/o platform. In Germany at
least they must be in main tracks which have no starter signal. (In these
cases, the stop post replaces the starter signal, making it to a very
important security technology element. For instance, the overlap starts at
the stop post.)

There may be also stop posts in tracks w/o platform but with starter if
there is a Reisendenzugang over the track (leading to a platform at other
tracks).

> ...but I think that we should keep both elements <stopPost> and
> <serviceSection> or <platform> since it provides us more flexibility in
> extending this first approach to the platform problem.

No objection.

Best regards,
Dirk.
Re: joined continue: "Platforms and ramps for railML 2.2" and "Haltetafel / stop post" [message #294 is a reply to message #292] Wed, 04 April 2012 23:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Christian Rahmig is currently offline  Christian Rahmig
Messages: 151
Registered: January 2011
Senior Member
Hello Dirk,

>> Further attributes for describing the stop post may be optional:
>> - "serviceSectionRef" for referencing the service section, where the
>> stop post is situated.
>> - "stopPostType" for specifying the stop post element.
>
> I agree with your suggestion and also with Susanne's advice:
>
>> Please do not repeat the elements' name in the attribute. 'Type' is
>> often used for 'datatype'. Let's find a more concise term. Which
>> enumeration should be offered behind this attribute?
>
> I don't think that we should name it 'type' at all. We should give it
> only attributes for these properties which are really (physically)
> existing at the sign post itself. Any properties which rely to the
> platform rather then to the stop post should be written at the
> <serviceSection> or <platform> element.

I absolutely agree with your statement.

> The attributes of a stop post should be from my side:
> --> "id"
> --> "pos"
> --> "serviceSectionRef" (optional, see below)
> --> direction (at the track - up or down) (mandatory)
> --> additional conditions (this relies to Susannes train length, axle
> count, wagon count, verbal remark) (optional)
> --> 'sign code' or 'rule number' or so (this shall allow to define the
> 'Ne5' or 'So8' of DS/DV301 or something like that)
> --> valid for train categories (categoryRefs, none, one or more)

Still I do not fully understand the idea behind the additional
conditions "axle count", "wagon count" and "verbal remark" (cp. post in
subject "Haltetafel / stop post").
The sign code is important, but I would use the parameter "code" for it,
which already exists for any ocsElement.

> Concerning the attributes, we should ask us the questions:
> - Should it be possible to define a <stopPost> as 'virtual'? Virtual
> means that there is no real stop post sign but it is a place where one
> could or should stay (where trains have to stop). This may be important
> for the reference of a train to a <stopPost>: If a train has to stop at
> a platform where there is no <stopPost> (may be because the starter
> signal directly standing at the end or simply because somebody of DB
> Projektbau has forgotten to plan it) - what shall the <trainPart> in
> RailML do? My recommendation: Allow virtual <stopPosts> with an attribute
>
> --> "virtual" (Boolean).

That is an interesting idea. The question is if there physically exists
a "substitute" for the stop post, which can be used for stopping a
train. Since we always talk about infrastructure, I'd rather see a
physical element providing the function of a stop post instead of
defining virtual elements. However, we need to analyse this problem.

> - Do we want to include an attribute whether the <stopPost> is valid for
> shunting movements and/or trains? This would include the German "Ra10"
> into stop posts. In Germany, we do normally not think that a Ra10 is a
> Haltetafel but one could have the opinion that the word Halttafel does
> include "RangierHALTTAFEL" ;-). However, in other countries these
> "shunting limits" may be more naturally stop posts. I would recommend to
> include them, which brings us to an attribute
>
> --> "validForMovements" (enumeration: FreightTrains, PassengerTrains,
> AllTrains, Shunting, both?).
>
> (It is all 'Arbeitstitel' only.)
>
> The reason for "PassengerTrains" and "AllTrains" is: In Germany normally
> a H-Tafel is valid for passenger trains only except if there is no
> starter signal in the track where it is valid for all trains.

Another important idea that you are bringing up here. For clarification
we have to ask ourselves whether we in fact talk about a combination of
two different signs/signals just at the same position along the track or
about a certain feature of a stop post, which cannot be found in a
separate context.

>> Connected with the last two attributes, the following two questions
>> need to be answered:
>> 1. Does any stop post exist, which is not referenced to a service
>> section (or platform)?
>
> Yes, of course. There are stop posts in tracks w/o platform. In Germany
> at least they must be in main tracks which have no starter signal. (In
> these cases, the stop post replaces the starter signal, making it to a
> very important security technology element. For instance, the overlap
> starts at the stop post.)
>
> There may be also stop posts in tracks w/o platform but with starter if
> there is a Reisendenzugang over the track (leading to a platform at
> other tracks).

Since there are stop posts without any reference to a <platform> or
<serviceSection> element, the parameter "serviceSectionRef" can only be
optional as you already mentioned.

Best regards

---
Christian Rahmig
railML.infrastructure coordinator
Re: joined continue: "Platforms and ramps for railML 2.2" and "Haltetafel / stop post" [message #296 is a reply to message #294] Thu, 05 April 2012 02:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dirk Bräuer is currently offline  Dirk Bräuer
Messages: 212
Registered: August 2008
Senior Member
> Still I do not fully understand the idea behind the additional
> conditions "axle count", "wagon count" and "verbal remark" (cp. post in
> subject "Haltetafel / stop post").

These refer to the small white additional signs below the normal black
German H-Tafel. It is necessary to have these additional signs if there
ist more than one stop post at one station track per direction. Nowadays,
there is always a (maximum) length of train written at these additional
signs. In former times it was more common to write an axle count. May be
you have seen a writing like "Rz 48x" below a H-Tafel which means "for
passenger trains with up to 48 axles".

It should not be conditions but simple properties.

> The sign code is important, but I would use the parameter "code" for it,
> which already exists for any ocsElement.

Since 'code' is an inherited attribute, it does naturally not rely to any
special property of a stop post. It should be saved for more general
usage, like an external primary key or so. For instance, if you describe a
point (Weiche) you should use 'code' for the point number (Weichennummer)
which is the external primary key. You should not write the rule book
number of the point's signal into 'code'.

> That is an interesting idea. The question is if there physically exists
> a "substitute" for the stop post, which can be used for stopping a
> train. Since we always talk about infrastructure, I'd rather see a
> physical element providing the function of a stop post instead of
> defining virtual elements. However, we need to analyse this problem.

Even if there would be a substitute it would be useless in this context.
My explanation was "what shall the <trainPart> in RailML do?". I assume
that there will be a possibility for a <trainPart> to reference a stop
post in future - like a <trainPart>.stopPostRef attribute. I assume that
you can only fill in references to stop posts - not to any other
infrastructure elements. That's why I think it is necessary to have
virtual stop posts.

Please, RailML is not a database for bureaucracy. It is functional and for
data exchange. So please do think functional.

What do you want to tell me with "we need to analyse this problem"?

There are virtual stop posts with and without "substitutes". A substitute
may be a Ra11 or So5/Ne1 in Germany. Often there is no stop post because
there is a starter signal directly at the end of the platform. You can
decide for yourself if a starter signal is a substitute for a stop post.
But in many cases I know there is simply nothing but the end of a
platform. I can send pictures for all these examples but I think we all
know them.

For instance, there are normally no stop posts in stations like Leipzig
Hbf. (Have you ever seen a stop post at the platform tracks of Leipzig
Hbf.?) I assume that there will be a possibility to define the relation of
a train to the platform by referencing a stop post (e. g. train stands
with its front at the end of the platform or with its rear at the
beginning of the platform or with its middle at the middle of the
platform). I think that it should be possible to define these relations
also in Leipzig Hbf. That's why I think we should allow virtual stop
posts. These relations are essential for run time calculation if you have
a MU of 35 m length at a 400 m platform with permitted speed of 40 km/h...

Enough arguing. There is a demand and so there should be a solution.

>> The reason for "PassengerTrains" and "AllTrains" is: In Germany normally
>> a H-Tafel is valid for passenger trains only except if there is no
>> starter signal in the track where it is valid for all trains.
>
> Another important idea that you are bringing up here. For clarification
> we have to ask ourselves whether we in fact talk about a combination of
> two different signs/signals just at the same position along the track or
> about a certain feature of a stop post, which cannot be found in a
> separate context.

There are no two different signs at the same location. You have these "all
train stop posts" also in other countries. I think they are a kind of
normal, typical for railways, natural. For instance I think at the big
markers 'Stop - obtain token to proceed...' with the big red splash at
RETB lines.

Dirk.
Re: Platforms and ramps for railML 2.2 [message #358 is a reply to message #283] Sun, 16 September 2012 09:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Christian Rahmig is currently offline  Christian Rahmig
Messages: 151
Registered: January 2011
Senior Member
Dear railML users,

> 1. <trackElements> will be extended with a new element named
> <serviceSection> for modelling platforms, ramps and related facilities.
>
> 2. The new element <serviceSection> describes the part ("section") of a
> track, which can be used for the exchange of passengers, goods or similar.
>
> 3. Attributes for this new element include:
> - position information: defines the starting position and direction
> of the serviceSection
> - length: the section length which is defined as the actually usable
> length (NOT the physically existing platform/ramp which can be longer)
> - height: the objects's height in mm above rails (for feasible types
> only)
> - type: enumeration of
> "platform" (passanger platform)
> "ramp" (ramp for loading / unloading goods)
> "maintenance" (maintenance facilities e. g. in a depot)
> "loadingFacility" (Goods can be (un-)loaded from the wagon's
> top / underfloor)
> "cleaning" (washing facility for cars and engines)
> "fueling" (facility for re-fuelling of engines)
> "parking" (section for parking of rolling stock)
> "preheating" (electricity or steam for pre-heating purposes)
> "other"
> - side: right, left (seen in positive mileage direction)
>
> 4. Each <serviceSection> can have multiple types. Tracks with platforms
> on both sides need two <serviceSection> elements to force the definition
> of different platform names.
>
> 5. Additional semantics:
> - name: the name contains the platform number (e.g. "3")
> - The associated OCP can be de-referenced from the OCP's <trackGroup>

including the comments from Dirk and the discussions with the other
schema coordinators, platforms and service sections will be implemented
in railML 2.2 as follows (c.f. [1]):

1. <trackElements> will be extended with two new elements:
<platformEdges> for modelling platforms
<serviceSections> for modelling ramps and related facilities like
maintenance and fueling areas.

2. A <platformEdge> contains the following attributes:
- position information: defines the starting position and direction
of the platform
- length: the length of the platform from an operational view
(usable length)
- height: the platform's height in mm above rails
- side: right, left (seen in positive direction of the track)

3. A <serviceSection> contains the following attributes:
- position information, length, height and side as described for
the platformEdge
- various boolean attributes for a functional classification of the
service section. A service section may fulfill multiple functions and
therefore multiple boolean attributes may be set true.

[1] https://trac.assembla.com/railML/ticket/122

Regards

--
Christian Rahmig
railML.infrastructure coordinator
Re: Platforms and ramps for railML 2.2 [message #374 is a reply to message #358] Tue, 02 October 2012 18:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dirk Bräuer is currently offline  Dirk Bräuer
Messages: 212
Registered: August 2008
Senior Member
Dear Christian,

> 2. A <platformEdge> contains the following attributes:
> - position information: defines the starting position and direction
> of the platform
> - length: the length of the platform from an operational view
> (usable length)
> - height: the platform's height in mm above rails
> - side: right, left (seen in positive direction of the track)

This leaves the question 'Where shall a train to stop at a platform which
is longer than the train?' for future RailML extensions.

(This question is relatively important in practice - it can even influence
the official run time of a train. This is also the question about 'stop
posts' - H-Tafeln - and whether there can be none or more than one at a
platform and how they are valid.)

Dirk.
Re: joined continue: "Platforms and ramps for railML 2.2" and "Haltetafel / stop post" [message #382 is a reply to message #296] Sat, 06 October 2012 11:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Christian Rahmig is currently offline  Christian Rahmig
Messages: 151
Registered: January 2011
Senior Member
Hello Dirk,

in trac ticket [1] I concluded the whole subject on stop posts for an
implementation in railML 2.2 considering most of the ideas mentioned in
the forum entries here and in the original [2].

However, few things are still open, e.g.:
>> The sign code is important, but I would use the parameter "code" for
>> it, which already exists for any ocsElement.
>
> Since 'code' is an inherited attribute, it does naturally not rely to
> any special property of a stop post. It should be saved for more general
> usage, like an external primary key or so. For instance, if you describe
> a point (Weiche) you should use 'code' for the point number
> (Weichennummer) which is the external primary key. You should not write
> the rule book number of the point's signal into 'code'.

How about using the parameter "name" for this? In fact, the element's
type abbreviation is not only interesting for stop posts, but it is also
attached to points (EW, IBW, DKW...) or signals in general (Ra10,
So12...). So, I think, a more global parameter is required? Any comments
appreciated...

[1] https://trac.assembla.com/railML/ticket/167
[2] http://www.railml.org/forum/ro/index.php?group=1&offset= 20&thread=34

Regards

--
Christian Rahmig
railML.infrastructure coordinator
Re: Platforms and ramps for railML 2.2 [message #383 is a reply to message #374] Sat, 06 October 2012 12:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Christian Rahmig is currently offline  Christian Rahmig
Messages: 151
Registered: January 2011
Senior Member
Hello Dirk,

> This leaves the question 'Where shall a train to stop at a platform
> which is longer than the train?' for future RailML extensions.
>
> (This question is relatively important in practice - it can even
> influence the official run time of a train. This is also the question
> about 'stop posts' - H-Tafeln - and whether there can be none or more
> than one at a platform and how they are valid.)

does the implementation of the stop post subject as described in [1]
concluding the ideas of the forum discussion in [2] fulfill all your
requirements?

[1] https://trac.assembla.com/railML/ticket/167
[2] http://www.railml.org/forum/ro/index.php?group=1&offset= 20&thread=34

Regards

--
Christian Rahmig
railML.infrastructure coordinator
Re: Platforms and ramps for railML 2.2 [message #386 is a reply to message #383] Tue, 09 October 2012 11:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dirk Bräuer is currently offline  Dirk Bräuer
Messages: 212
Registered: August 2008
Senior Member
Hello Christian,

> does the implementation of the stop post subject as described in [1]
> concluding the ideas of the forum discussion in [2] fulfill all your
> requirements?

Yes, thank you, with the attention to the notes I wrote there.

Dirk.
"Sign code" for stop posts (was: joined continue: "Platforms and ramps for railML 2.2" and "Haltetafel / stop post") [message #450 is a reply to message #292] Tue, 13 November 2012 10:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Susanne Wunsch is currently offline  Susanne Wunsch
Messages: 180
Registered: March 2008
Senior Member
Dirk Bräuer <dirkbraeuer(at)irfpde> writes:

> The attributes of a stop post should be from my side:
[...]
> --> 'sign code' or 'rule number' or so (this shall allow to define the
> Ne5' or 'So8' of DS/DV301 or something like that)

If filed a Trac ticket for this issue in order to clarify it with railML
2.2:

http://trac.assembla.com/railML/ticket/198

Kind regards...
Susanne

--
Susanne Wunsch
Schema Coordinator: railML.common
Re: "Sign code" for stop posts [message #492 is a reply to message #450] Mon, 03 December 2012 20:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Christian Rahmig is currently offline  Christian Rahmig
Messages: 151
Registered: January 2011
Senior Member
Dear Susanne and Dirk,

Am 13.11.2012 10:03, schrieb Susanne Wunsch:
> Dirk Bräuer <dirkbraeuer(at)irfpde> writes:
>
>> The attributes of a stop post should be from my side:
> [...]
>> --> 'sign code' or 'rule number' or so (this shall allow to define the
>> Ne5' or 'So8' of DS/DV301 or something like that)
>
> If filed a Trac ticket for this issue in order to clarify it with railML
> 2.2:
>
> http://trac.assembla.com/railML/ticket/198

the so-called "sign code" is a parameter, which belongs to more elements
than just the stop post. Considering the DS/DV301 the name "stop post"
is identical with the codes 'Ne5' or 'So8'.

I suggest to extend the concept of "sign code" to all <signal> and
<stopPost> elements within the <ocsElements> container. Instead of "sign
code" I would name it "ocsCode".

Any comments appreciated...

Regards

--
Christian Rahmig
railML.infrastructure coordinator
Re: "Sign code" for stop posts [message #493 is a reply to message #492] Mon, 03 December 2012 20:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dirk Bräuer is currently offline  Dirk Bräuer
Messages: 212
Registered: August 2008
Senior Member
Dear Christian,

> I suggest to extend the concept of "sign code" to all <signal> and
> <stopPost> elements within the <ocsElements> container. Instead of "sign
> code" I would name it "ocsCode".

Agreed. But more general, this applies not only to <ocsElements> but also
to (at least some) <trackElements> so please do not call it "ocsCode".

I would prefer to use the name for notifying that we mean a rule book
number. So what about "ruleBookCode" or "ruleCode"? (Could later become
"ruleRef" if we possibly will have <operationalRules> scheme in far
futuer...)

Best regards,
Dirk.
Re: "Sign code" for stop posts [message #511 is a reply to message #493] Fri, 18 January 2013 11:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Susanne Wunsch is currently offline  Susanne Wunsch
Messages: 180
Registered: March 2008
Senior Member
Dear Dirk and Christian,

Dirk Bräuer <dirkbraeuer(at)irfpde> writes:
>> I suggest to extend the concept of "sign code" to all <signal> and
>> <stopPost> elements within the <ocsElements> container. Instead of
>> "sign code" I would name it "ocsCode".
>
> Agreed. But more general, this applies not only to <ocsElements> but
> also to (at least some) <trackElements> so please do not call it
> "ocsCode".

Which other elements do also apply to get the new attribute?

I just implemented the optional attribute 'ruleCode' of type xs:string
for the elements 'stopPost' and 'signal'. [1] [2]

Please check out, if this implementation fulfills your needs.

Kind regards...
Susanne

[1] http://trac.assembla.com/railML/changeset/529
[2] https://trac.assembla.com/railML/ticket/198
Re: "Sign code" for stop posts [message #1552 is a reply to message #511] Wed, 19 April 2017 15:25 Go to previous message
Ferri Leberl is currently offline  Ferri Leberl
Messages: 10
Registered: September 2016
Junior Member
@ruleCode has been added to <derailer>, too.

The attribute has meanwhile been documented in the wiki at its three occurrences.

In my view, Ticket #198 can be closed.

Yours,
Ferri Leberl
Previous Topic: Switch: usage of attribute @course
Next Topic: Modeling of switches
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Wed Jun 28 07:27:13 CEST 2017