Home » railML newsgroups » railML.infrastructure » [railML 3.1] border types
Re: [railML 3.1] border types [message #1827 is a reply to message #1810] Mon, 04 June 2018 15:25 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
christian.rahmig is currently offline  christian.rahmig
Messages: 436
Registered: January 2016
Senior Member
Dear Thomas,

Am 29.05.2018 um 18:45 schrieb Thomas Nygreen:
> In Norway we discussed just a week or two ago if <border>s
> were suitable for specifying shunting areas etc. in
> stations. Would this kind of use be in line with what the
> element is intended for? Two questions we had was how to
> group borders together to actually form an area, and how to
> specify what kind of area it is. The former can be solved by
> using a common name for all borders of the same area, and
> the latter by using type="other:...", but creating a way to
> group borders together by IDREF seems preferable.

the situation that you describe here, is better being solved with a
different implementation: Instead of using border elements, I suggest to
define an <OperationalPoint> and to locate this operational point as an
area covering all the affected tracks. Further, this <OperationalPoint>
can be specified with an attribute
<propOperational>@operationalType="shuntingYard". Finally, the
interlocking element may reference this operational point.

So, to conclude: I think that grouping of borders is not the best
solution here. Borders shall be used where there is an explicit point
(e.g. on the track) where e.g. the ownership changes (without knowing
where else it will change too).

> This is also one of the elements where it is difficult to
> understand the semantics of the dir attribute. Can a border
> exist in only one direction?

Interesting question. Usually. a border point should be always valid in
both directions. But let's think of a station: the border between
station and "free line" may differ depending on the driving direction:
when entering the station, the entry signal mark a border point. When
leaving the station, the last switch may be seen as border point.
However, I am not the expert in these details and therefore I am happy
about any further comment from the community w.r.t. this issue.

Thank you very much and best regards
Christian

--
Christian Rahmig - Infrastructure scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Phone Coordinator: +49 173 2714509; railML.org: +49 351 47582911
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railml.org


Christian Rahmig – Infrastructure scheme coordinator
railML.org (Registry of Associations: VR 5750)
Altplauen 19h; 01187 Dresden; Germany www.railML.org
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: [railML2] adding an attribute for clearance on switches and crossings.
Next Topic: railML 2.3 infrastructure extension proposal tunnel resistance factor
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Wed May 15 05:24:31 CEST 2024