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

Re: switchType IS vs. IL [message #2118 is a reply to message #2100]

Sat, 26 January 2019 05:01

Joerg von Lingen
Messages: 148
Registered: May 2011

Senior Member

@switchType in <switchIL> removed

Joerg von Lingen wrote on 16.01.2019 12:16:
> 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?
>

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: Sat May 11 09:28:36 CEST 2024