Home » railML newsgroups » railML.infrastructure » [railML3] Request for extension of the 'crossing' infrastructure element
Re: [railML3] Request for extension of the 'crossing' infrastructure element [message #2449 is a reply to message #2448] Sat, 30 May 2020 09:05 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Jörg von Lingen is currently offline  Jörg von Lingen
Messages: 91
Registered: March 2016
Member
Hi,

just a remark on the issue:

An interlocking always needs to set a particular (virtual) position to a
crossing in order to clearly define the path. This is needed even if the
trackwork outside does not move at all, i.e. no physical switching of the
crossing. But that is why the counterpart in IL subschema is named
<movableCrossing>.

Best regards,
Joerg v. Lingen - Interlocking Coordinator
Am 29.05.2020 um 13:20 schrieb Christian Rahmig:
> For the background discussion: there are different answers
> to the question whether a crossing (not a switch crossing!)
> can be considered as a topology relevant element. Some say
> "yes", because there is a (physical) connection of rails
> based on different NetElements and some say "no", because
> there is no "topological choice" at a crossing (you may only
> go one way and have no chance to choose a branch). Any
> comments on this (rather philosophical) discussion are
> highly appreciated, too.

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Definition of track/stoppingPlace/platform infrastructure vs. timetable
Next Topic: [RailML3] Renaming Track into UsagePattern
Goto Forum:
  

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Mon Oct 07 12:30:10 CEST 2024