[railML3]: Identification of preferred route path [message #2490] |
Sat, 11 July 2020 06:41 |
Jörg von Lingen
Messages: 87 Registered: March 2016
|
Member |
|
|
Dear all,
currently can the path of a route from start A to destination B uniquely described. This is especially necessary, if
there are more than one possible path between A and B. However, at the moment it is not possible the mark the preferred
route path in case of several routes from A to B, i.e. the path which is used as standard one from A to B.
1) Is such a marking needed?
2) If such a marking needs to be included shall it be:
a) mark the standard path (used for the majority of routes even if only one path possible) ?
b) mark the alternative pathes (used only in case of additional possible pathes) ?
--
Regards,
Jörg von Lingen - Interlocking Coordinator
|
|
|
|
|
Re: [railML3]: Identification of preferred route path [message #2500 is a reply to message #2498] |
Fri, 17 July 2020 09:31 |
Henrik Roslund
Messages: 6 Registered: August 2019 Location: Zürich
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Dear Jörg,
Sorry for not answering the second question.
Here comes more background information.
In Switzerland:
If there exist more train routes between A and B, the preferred train route has a variable set, which tells that this is the preferred train route.
For all other train routes between A and B is this attribute/variable not set (the variable value is empty (empty == "", but not null))
If there only one possible train route between A and B is this variable not set, the value is empty (empty == "", but not null).
How they in the planning data distinguish the preferred train route in Sweden, unfortunately, I have forgotten it.
My answer to your second question is "2a-extended":
• If it exists more than one train route between A and B, mark the preferred train route with a variable with a value, e.g. "defaultPath"/"Preferred", all other train routes is the variable not set.
• If it only exists one train route between A and B is the variable not used/not set.
Kind regards,
Henrik
|
|
|
Re: [railML3]: Identification of preferred route path [message #2577 is a reply to message #2500] |
Thu, 05 November 2020 01:30 |
Thomas Nygreen
Messages: 68 Registered: March 2008
|
Member |
|
|
Dear Jörg,
Dear Henrik,
For a more general approach, maybe the preference should be given as a priority or rank. This would also allow ranking the alternative routes. It can be implemented similarly to Henrik's suggestion:
* If only one route is given, the rank is not specified
* If two or more routes are given, the preferred route is given the minimum allowed rank (e.g. 1), and the alternate routes are given a higher rank value. The different alternate routes can have the same rank, or be ordered using different ranks.
Best regards,
Thomas
Thomas Nygreen – Common Schema Coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org
|
|
|
Re: [railML3]: Identification of preferred route path [message #2578 is a reply to message #2577] |
Thu, 05 November 2020 06:14 |
Jörg von Lingen
Messages: 87 Registered: March 2016
|
Member |
|
|
Thanks to Henrik and Thomas for the input.
Yes, the suggestion looks feasible. I will incorporate an attribute "priorityRank" as positiveInteger in
<CombinedRoute>, which is used for itinerary.
Regards,
Jörg von Lingen - Interlocking Coordinator
Thomas Nygreen wrote on 05.11.2020 01:30:
> Dear Jörg,
> Dear Henrik,
>
> For a more general approach, maybe the preference should be
> given as a priority or rank. This would also allow ranking
> the alternative routes. It can be implemented similarly to
> Henrik's suggestion:
> * If only one route is given, the rank is not specified
> * If two or more routes are given, the preferred route is
> given the minimum allowed rank (e.g. 1), and the alternate
> routes are given a higher rank value. The different
> alternate routes can have the same rank, or be ordered using
> different ranks.
>
> Best regards,
> Thomas
>
|
|
|