Home » railML newsgroups » railml.infrastructure » [railML3] Mandatory <Location> for <genericArea>?
[railML3] Mandatory <Location> for <genericArea>? [message #3138] Tue, 10 October 2023 10:51 Go to next message
Torben Brand is currently offline  Torben Brand
Messages: 147
Registered: March 2016
Senior Member
Dear railML community,

Do I read this right that a <location> is mandatory for <genericArea>?
https://wiki3.railml.org/wiki/IS:genericArea

In the norwegian railway sector we need project areas. They work great in railML2.4nor explained in chapter 4.9 here:
https://www.jernbanedirektoratet.no/globalassets/documenter/ railml/20230330_railml2.4norisdocumentation_v1.6.pdf

We use bounding elements using <isLimitedBy> references pointing to functional infrastructure elements (<border>s).
The same mechanisms exist in railML3.2 and we would like to use them!
But we do not have any information on circles or polygones as is the required choice under <location>!
Also we have no requirementfor them!

Se example for a project area in Advanced Example in Railoscope here:
https://railoscope.com/tickets/Fyh1WAZliOQbgVmY?modelId=64d2 293fb1421a4b8096c580&selectId=163-22

Report message to a moderator

Re: [railML3] Mandatory <Location> for <genericArea>? [message #3144 is a reply to message #3138] Wed, 18 October 2023 14:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
christian.rahmig is currently offline  christian.rahmig
Messages: 432
Registered: January 2016
Senior Member
Hello Torben,

thanks for pointing on this topic. I checked the related development issue [1] and the forum posts [2]. After all, I cannot find any reason or argumentation, why the child element <location> should be mandatory and I am quite sure that this is a bug of our implementation of the <genericArea> element in railML 3.2. I suggest to change this to optional (like for the other child elements) with railML 3.3.

If someone from the community has any objection, please let me know until end of Octobre 2023.

Thank you very much and best regards
Christian

[1] https://development.railml.org/railml/version3/-/issues/479
[2] https://www.railml.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=830& goto=2832&#msg_2832

Christian Rahmig – Infrastructure scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org

Report message to a moderator

Re: [railML3] Mandatory <Location> for <genericArea>? [message #3153 is a reply to message #3144] Tue, 31 October 2023 14:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Georg Boasson is currently offline  Georg Boasson
Messages: 15
Registered: October 2020
Junior Member
Bane NOR will be using <genericArea> in our railML3.2 exchange of data in Q1 2024 and will therefore very much appreciate a service fix deployment of railML3.2. The fix should use <isLimitedBy> as borders instead of circles or polygones.

Report message to a moderator

Re: [railML3] Mandatory <Location> for <genericArea>? [message #3165 is a reply to message #3153] Tue, 14 November 2023 08:06 Go to previous message
christian.rahmig is currently offline  christian.rahmig
Messages: 432
Registered: January 2016
Senior Member
Dear Georg,

thank you for your feedback. We understood that this topic is very important for Bane NOR and their projects and therefore, the ticket will be priorized for railML 3.3 implementation. As for railML 3.2, we will document a work-around based on zero entries in the railML3 wiki.

Best regards
Christian

Christian Rahmig – Infrastructure scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: [railML 3] railway signal modeling
Next Topic: [railML 2.5] Connections without track information
Goto Forum:
  

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Thu Dec 07 20:14:36 CET 2023