| [railML3|alpha] Re: Remarks on example_tiny_v02.xml of v0.is3 [message #1409 is a reply to message #1408] |
Thu, 01 September 2016 16:30   |
Felix Prüter
Messages: 28
Registered: June 2016
Location: Berlin
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Hi Christian,
I studied the example completly and have further remarks and questions.
I understand that the example is not yet complete but maybe we can discuss some topics on its current state.
I noticed, that the way locating assets in railML differs from the RTM approach.
<levelCrossings>
<levelCrossing name="levelCrossing01" id="lc_01">
<spotLocation id="sloc_001">
<spot id="sloc_001_01" netElementRef="ne_x01" dir="up" pos="1500" />
<gml_point id="gml_01">
<description>this is a GML point</description>
<pos>52.123 10.456</pos>
</gml_point>
</spotLocation>
<spotLocation id="sloc_023">
<spot id="sloc_023_01" posSystemRef="lps_01" pos="0.850"/>
</spotLocation>
</levelCrossing>
</levelCrossings>
The LC is located using 2 SpotLocations.
One refers to an netElement using an absolute(?) position.
One refers to a positioningSystem using an intrinsic(?) position.
How to distinguish between the to approaches? Is the a rule, whether the pos attribute is a absolute, relative or intrinsic value?
Unfortunately the link between the topology and the coordinates (via AssociatedPositioningSystem elements) is missing at all (or are incorrect if present) so there is no chance to know about the 'real' length of any netElement.
I assume the values of the RTM-wiki-example!?
Best Regards
Felix
[Updated on: Mon, 10 October 2016 19:00] by Moderator Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
