Forum: railml.interlocking » Restricted Areas: limitedBy vs. elements inside

Home » railML newsgroups » railml.interlocking » Restricted Areas: limitedBy vs. elements inside

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

Re: Restricted Areas: limitedBy vs. elements inside [message #2095 is a reply to message #2091]

Mon, 14 January 2019 13:49

Thomas Nygreen JBD
Messages: 68
Registered: February 2017

Member

Dear Jörg,

I have a strong preference for using only the <isLimitedBy>s to define the area. This is also the current approach of the Norwegian sector in railML2.4nor. I find that the <trackAssetInRA>s and similarly the <tvdSection>/<relatedToTrack>s are redundant. The latter is also required (one or more). There can easily be a very large number of assets within an RA, resulting in a large number of such references. Through the topology and positioning systems these assets are easily identifiable without direct references.

Best regards,
Thomas Nygreen
Railway capacity engineer
Jernbanedirektoratet

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		Restricted Areas: limitedBy vs. elements inside By: Joerg von Lingen on Sun, 13 January 2019 04:37
		Re: Restricted Areas: limitedBy vs. elements inside By: Thomas Nygreen JBD on Mon, 14 January 2019 13:49
		Re: Restricted Areas: limitedBy vs. elements inside By: Jörg von Lingen on Wed, 16 January 2019 12:08
		Re: Restricted Areas: limitedBy vs. elements inside By: Joerg von Lingen on Sat, 26 January 2019 05:03
		Re: Restricted Areas: limitedBy vs. elements inside By: Joerg von Lingen on Wed, 13 January 2021 05:58

Previous Topic:	What is the rationale for multiple <assetsForIL>s?
Next Topic:	[railML3]: Referencing between IS and IL

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Wed May 15 03:28:49 CEST 2024