Home » railML newsgroups » railML.infrastructure » Haltetafel / stop post
| Re: Haltetafel / stop post [message #476 is a reply to message #469] |
Sun, 02 December 2012 11:41   |
Christian Rahmig
Messages: 151
Registered: January 2011
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dear Dirk,
> Your suggestion seams to be the best we can do for now. But there would
> be still many questions left, e. g.:
>
> - If a simulation software founds several H-posts at a track with
> different properties (min/max train length, axle count, waggon count),
> the relation between the properties were not clear.
What kind of relation do you think about: The relation between different
stop posts or the relation between different constraints/properties of a
stop post?
> - The terms "min" and "max" could be misunderstood as boundaries of
> interpolation (outermost H-posts in Switzerland) and as "for all trains
> up to a length of..." (H-posts in Germany). We intend to mean the
> latter, but this cannot necessarily be deduced from the terms. So we
> possibly regulate nothing with the new attribute. The enumeration values
> of the attribute you suggest would (theoretically) have to be named "for
> all trains up to" (=max), "for all trains with more than" (=min), "only
> for trains with exactly" (=interpolating).
To keep it short we may think about the "bounding" parameter with the
values 'upTo', 'moreThan' and 'exactly'.
> Since these problems become clear, I could also imagine that we leave it
> with the absolute minimum of information which is obviously
> infrastructure: The additional values or strings which are written at
> H-posts but nothing more. Since "interpolating", "min", and "max" are
> (currently) not written at the H-posts, this attribute would be off.
I agree. This bounding-issue probably needs more time to think about it
and we may have another try with railML 2.3?
> This would possibly mean to provide an optional string attribute for
> H-posts only. And leave the interpretation of that string either to the
> reading software (for the moment) or to an <operationalRules> scheme
> (for the future).
How about using the already introduced stop post parameter
"verbalConstraints", which is of type xs:string?
Regards
--
Christian Rahmig
railML.infrastructure coordinator
|
|
|
|
Current Time: Wed May 08 07:11:53 CEST 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
