| Re: suggestion for switchIS@type="crossingPart" [message #3840 is a reply to message #3822] |
Mon, 15 December 2025 13:56   |
christian.rahmig
Messages: 530
Registered: January 2016
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dear Mathias,
let me pick up your code example and modify it a little bit: Instead of adding a "crossing part", I just left out the second switch crossing part, because there is no "switch functionality" if approaching from this side. Consequently, a partitioned single switch crossing consists of one switch of type "switchCrossingPart" and one parent switch of type "singleSwitchCrossing".
In particular:
<switchIS id="swi1" type="singleSwitchCrossing">
<straightBranch netRelationRef="nr1"/>
<straightBranch netRelationRef="nr2"/>
<turningBranch netRelationRef="nr3"/>
</switchIS>
<switchIS id="swi1_part1" type="switchCrossingPart" branchCourse="left" continueCourse="right" belongsToParent="swi1">
<spotLocation intrinsicCoord="1.0" netElementRef="le1" applicationDirection="normal" />
<leftBranch netRelationRef="nr3"/>
<rightBranch netRelationRef="nr2"/>
</switchIS>
This approach of not explicitly modelling "crossing parts" fits to the approach of modelling simple crossings, where there are also no "crossing parts".
As always, any feedback from you and the rest of the community is very much appreciated.
Best regards
Christian
Christian Rahmig – Infrastructure scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
