Home » railML newsgroups » railml.infrastructure » [railML3] InfrastructureVisualization
[railML3] InfrastructureVisualization [message #2246] Tue, 03 September 2019 08:23 Go to next message
Heidrun Jost is currently offline  Heidrun Jost
Messages: 16
Registered: September 2006
Junior Member
Dear all,

in railML 3.1 the visualization of railway elements are defined in the
infrastructure schema as “InfrastructureVisualizations”.

Currently there is no possibility to visualize elements without a
connection to the infrastructure (e.g. for TVD sections [track vacancy
detection sections] or indicating objects from the interlocking schema).

Therefore the following request and proposal:

Is it possible to move the “InfrastructureVisualization” to the common
schema as “Visualization” in a future version of railML 3?

Best regards,
Heidrun Jost
Data Manager
Transportation Systems
Thales Deutschland GmbH

Phone: +49 (0) 30 688306 423
Schützenstr. 25 – 10117 Berlin – Germany
Re: [railML3] InfrastructureVisualization [message #2255 is a reply to message #2246] Mon, 07 October 2019 21:45 Go to previous message
christian.rahmig is currently offline  christian.rahmig
Messages: 235
Registered: January 2016
Senior Member
Dear Heidrun,

Am 03.09.2019 um 08:23 schrieb Heidrun Jost:
> [...]
> Is it possible to move the “InfrastructureVisualization” to the common
> schema as “Visualization” in a future version of railML 3?

thank you for bringing up this topic here in the forum. The
generalization from "infrastructureVisualization" to "visualization"
affects also the other schemes: for example, there may be visualizations
(aka graphical representations) of timetables, rolling stock material or
interlocking issues. Considering this generic and cross-schema approach
to visualization, the forum post may be also added to the "misc forum"
to reach the whole community.

But more important, dear railML community:
What do you think about the proposal of having a generic approach of
"visualization"? Which examples of graphical representations do you
think of and which of them require an explicit description of the
visualization that cannot be derived directly from the data? Any input
on these questions is highly appreciated.

Thank you very much and best regards

Christian Rahmig - Infrastructure scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Phone Coordinator: +49 173 2714509; railML.org: +49 351 47582911
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railml.org
Previous Topic: [railML3] Mandatory <length> element for <track>s
Next Topic: [railML2] @dir
Goto Forum:

Current Time: Wed Oct 16 12:28:43 CEST 2019