| Re: suggestion for switchIS@type="crossingPart" [message #4033 is a reply to message #3954] |
Fri, 12 June 2026 12:55   |
christian.rahmig
Messages: 580
Registered: January 2016
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dear all,
when implementing the issues for railML 3.4, we discovered an overlap between this discussion about simple crossings [1] and the other topic about switch ratios [2], [3].
In particular: the ratio is defined as tangens of the switch/crossing angle. This means, that a crossing angle in the range 0<angle<90 degrees can be unambiguously translated into a ratio value of 1:x with x>0.
In order to avoid redundancies and model conflicts, we thought about how to fuse both issues: Make use of the ratio (denominator), but link it with the netElements that form the (smaller) crossing angle. This is, how the idea can look like for the already introduced example crossing with ratio 1:9 (corresponds to a crossing angle of 6,4 degrees):
<crossing id="cro42">
<name name="69K08" />
<spotLocation id="swi42_sloc01" netElementRef="ne_15" ... />
<ratio fromNetElement="ne_15" toNetElement="ne_16" denominator="9" />
<straightBranch netRelationRef="nr_a15a18" radius="0" />
<straightBranch netRelationRef="nr_a16a17" radius="0" />
</crossing>
My questions to you, dear community:
1) What do you think about this approach?
2) What do you use more in reality: crossing angle or crossing ratio?
As usual, any kind of feedback is very much appreciated before I am going to update the solution proposal in [1].
Thank you very much and best regards
Christian
[1] https://development.railml.org/railml/version3/-/issues/719
[2] https://development.railml.org/railml/version3/-/issues/685
[3] https://www.railml.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=1099& ;start=0&
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
