Home » railML newsgroups » railml.infrastructure » [railML3|alpha] Remarks on example_tiny_v02.xml of v0.is3
[railML3|alpha] Remarks on example_tiny_v02.xml of v0.is3 [message #1408] Thu, 01 September 2016 14:28 Go to next message
Felix Prüter is currently offline  Felix Prüter
Messages: 16
Registered: June 2016
Location: Berlin
Junior Member
Hello Christian,
i recognized inconsistend references from all relation nodes of netElements like
ref="nr003109"
to the netRelations (
id="nr_a01a03"
.
The references of the opposite direction are correct :-)

The netElement with id="ne_B03" is referneced with ref="ne_b03". I think it shiould be lower case everywhere... ;-)

Best Regards
Felix

[Updated on: Mon, 10 October 2016 18:59] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

[railML3|alpha] Re: Remarks on example_tiny_v02.xml of v0.is3 [message #1409 is a reply to message #1408] Thu, 01 September 2016 16:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Felix Prüter is currently offline  Felix Prüter
Messages: 16
Registered: June 2016
Location: Berlin
Junior Member
Hi Christian,
I studied the example completly and have further remarks and questions.
I understand that the example is not yet complete but maybe we can discuss some topics on its current state.

I noticed, that the way locating assets in railML differs from the RTM approach.

     
     <levelCrossings>
       <levelCrossing name="levelCrossing01" id="lc_01">
          <spotLocation id="sloc_001">
            <spot id="sloc_001_01" netElementRef="ne_x01" dir="up" pos="1500" />
            <gml_point id="gml_01">
              <description>this is a GML point</description>
              <pos>52.123 10.456</pos>
            </gml_point>
          </spotLocation>
          <spotLocation id="sloc_023">
            <spot id="sloc_023_01" posSystemRef="lps_01" pos="0.850"/>
          </spotLocation>
        </levelCrossing>
      </levelCrossings>


The LC is located using 2 SpotLocations.
One refers to an netElement using an absolute(?) position.
One refers to a positioningSystem using an intrinsic(?) position.

How to distinguish between the to approaches? Is the a rule, whether the pos attribute is a absolute, relative or intrinsic value?

Unfortunately the link between the topology and the coordinates (via AssociatedPositioningSystem elements) is missing at all (or are incorrect if present) so there is no chance to know about the 'real' length of any netElement.
I assume the values of the RTM-wiki-example!?

Best Regards
Felix

[Updated on: Mon, 10 October 2016 19:00] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

[railML3|alpha] Re: Remarks on example_tiny_v02.xml of v0.is3 [message #1410 is a reply to message #1408] Fri, 02 September 2016 09:07 Go to previous message
christian.rahmig is currently offline  christian.rahmig
Messages: 46
Registered: January 2016
Member
Dear Felix,

you are absolutely right: the mentioned railML example file is
inconsistent. I discovered this issue after uploading. Check the cloud
again and you will find a newer (and corrected) version of the example.

Thank you very much for being attentive!
Christian

Am 01.09.2016 um 14:28 schrieb Felix Prüter:
> Hello Christian,
> i recognized inconsistend references from all relation nodes
> of netElements like ref="nr003109" to the netRelations
> (id="nr_a01a03".
> The references of the opposite direction are correct :-)
>
> Best Regards
> Felix


--
Christian Rahmig
railML.infrastructure coordinator

[Updated on: Mon, 10 October 2016 19:00] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: Clothoid
Next Topic: InfraAttributes and InfraAttrGroups
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri Aug 18 05:06:26 CEST 2017