| [raillML3] Mounting information of signals [message #3177] |
Mon, 18 December 2023 11:14  |
Georg Boasson
Messages: 18
Registered: October 2020
|
Junior Member |
|
|
For information and compatibility with railML2, a new attribute @mountedOn (railML2.4nor is using the name @mounted) is wanted in the <signalConstruction> element. The main issue for this attribute will be information about how the signal is physical mounted. The attribute may be optional. Proposed enumeration values as in railML2.5:
MountedOn: The way the signal is physical mounted (optional; xs:string; patterns: other:w{2,})
• pole: The signal is mounted on a pole along the track
• gantry: The signal is mounted above the track
• wall: The signal is mounted on a wall
• ground: The signal is mounted on the ground
|
|
|
|
| Re: [raillML3] Mounting information of signals [message #3183 is a reply to message #3177] |
Fri, 05 January 2024 13:35  |
christian.rahmig
Messages: 436
Registered: January 2016
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dear Georg,
thank you very much for your input / modeling request and Happy New Year!
As your modeling proposal is already very detailed, it will be easy to put it into a Git issue for upcoming railML version 3.3.
Are there other members in the railML community that need this information about the signal mounting, too?
Thank you very much and best regards
Christian
Christian Rahmig – Infrastructure scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: [raillML3] Mounting information of signals [message #3186 is a reply to message #3183] |
Wed, 17 January 2024 17:15 |
Martin Zien
Messages: 12
Registered: December 2021
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Hello Christian, hello Georg,
yes, I can agree that such an extension makes sense and would be a useful completion of the set of information provided in railML 3.x.
If such information would be provided as machine readable input from an Infrastructure Manager, it's not necessary to collect it addtionally from documents like Basic Design Specifications or by Site Surveys.
Having it as optional element, would still allow the way of working in the conventional way, if necessary.
Would be interesting to read, what other members think in this matter.
Best regards
Martin Zien
(Siemens Mobility)
[Updated on: Wed, 17 January 2024 17:17] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
