Forum: railml.interlocking » switchType IS vs. IL

Home » railML newsgroups » railml.interlocking » switchType IS vs. IL

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

switchType IS vs. IL [message #2100]

Wed, 16 January 2019 12:16

Jörg von Lingen
Messages: 87
Registered: March 2016

Member

Dear all,

currently we have an attribute switchType in IS and IL which seem to be redundant. For the purpose in IL to distinguish
particluar relations we have found the following matches to IS making the attribute unnecessary in IL:

simpleSwitch <=> ordinarySwitch/insideCurvedSwitch/outsideCurvedSwitch without relatedMovableElement
simpleSwitch <=> ordinarySwitch/insideCurvedSwitch/outsideCurvedSwitch + relatedMovableElement (derailer)
coupledSwitch <=> ordinarySwitch/insideCurvedSwitch/outsideCurvedSwitch + relatedMovableElement (switch)
doubleSlipSwitch <=> doubleSwitchCrossing
singleSlipSwitch <=> simpleSwitchCrossing

Would you agree to remove the switchType in IL?

--
Regards,
Jörg von Lingen - Interlocking Coordinator

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		switchType IS vs. IL By: Jörg von Lingen on Wed, 16 January 2019 12:16
		Re: switchType IS vs. IL By: Joerg von Lingen on Sat, 26 January 2019 05:01

Previous Topic:	[railml3.1] Redundant references in TVD sections and restricted areas
Next Topic:	swicthType "interlacedSwitch" in IL

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Sun Apr 28 05:24:40 CEST 2024