Dev:Border between infrastructure managers and countries: Difference between revisions
[checked revision] | [checked revision] |
m (wording) |
(wording, formatting) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Introduction == | |||
Border between infrastructure managers (handover point) is the point where legal responsibility changes between the infrastructure managers [TAF TAP TSI]<ref>{{external|http://taf-jsg.info/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/20230426-JGS-Handbook-3.3-with-XSD-3.3.0.0.pdf|TAP TSI and TAF TSI Sector Handbook for the Communication between Railway Undertakings and Infrastructure Managers (RU/IM Telematics Sector Handbook) Submitted on 20th October 2022}}</ref>. | |||
These IM borders can be found between countries and within one e.g. in case there are private and national railway infrastructure managers in a country. Sometimes there are also two railway lines meeting each other. | |||
There are two approaches to represent border between infrastructure managers in railML2: with one or two tracks. To answer a question which example to use when, this seems to be a preference of a user. Both examples are syntactically and semantically valid and actually came from two different users of {{rml|2}}. | |||
It is important to ensure the correct definition of the railway tracks, e.g. additional semantic constraints apply e.g. IS:003 "If two <track>s are connected, the @absPos values of the connected {{tag|IS|trackBegin}} and {{tag|IS|trackEnd}} must be identical" <ref name="semCon">[[Dev:Semantic_Constraints]]</ref>. | |||
== Example with two tracks == | |||
The photo show an example of a ‘handover point’ at the Germany-Austria border. Here also two railway lines meet each other. Therefore restriction IS:003<ref name="semCon"></ref> cannot be fulfilled because track belongs to different mileage systems. This is represented via two railway lines referring to tracks. | |||
In the source code, shown below, there are two tracks belonging to two infrastructure managers. Ownership is represented by {{tag|IS|ownerChange}} elements. IEach of them has {{tag|IS|ownerChange}} positioned at the beginning. This is due to the reasoning that every track should be considered a separate system with its own properties defined. | |||
Further information about IMs is given in the {{tag|CO|infrastructureManager}} element and corresponding {{site|1=https://wiki2.railml.org/wiki/Dev:InfrastructureManagers|2=code list}}. | |||
[[File:Grenzbrücke_Braunau_Simbach.jpg|thumb|Border between infrastructure managers {{wikipedia|ÖBB Infra}} in Austria and {{wikipedia|1=DB InfraGO|3=de}} in Germany ({{external|https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Renardo_la_vulpo|By Renardo la vulpo|mode=silent}}/{{external|https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Braunau_a_I,_Eisenbahnbr%C3%BCcke_nach_Simbach,_2.jpeg|Image source|mode=silent}}/{{external|https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/cc0/|CC0|mode=silent}})]] | |||
{{ | |||
<syntaxhighlight lang="xml"> | <syntaxhighlight lang="xml"> | ||
Line 12: | Line 23: | ||
<organizationalUnits> | <organizationalUnits> | ||
<infrastructureManager id="ima01" code="DBN"/> | <infrastructureManager id="ima01" code="DBN"/> | ||
<infrastructureManager id="ima02" code=" | <infrastructureManager id="ima02" code="ÖBB"/> | ||
</organizationalUnits> | </organizationalUnits> | ||
</metadata> | </metadata> | ||
Line 19: | Line 30: | ||
<trackTopology> | <trackTopology> | ||
<trackBegin id="tb01" pos="0" absPos="0">..</trackBegin> | <trackBegin id="tb01" pos="0" absPos="0">..</trackBegin> | ||
<trackEnd id="te01" pos=" | <trackEnd id="te01" pos="59" absPos="59">..</trackEnd> | ||
</trackTopology> | </trackTopology> | ||
<trackElements> | <trackElements> | ||
Line 29: | Line 40: | ||
<track id="tr02"> | <track id="tr02"> | ||
<trackTopology> | <trackTopology> | ||
<trackBegin id="tb02" pos="0" absPos=" | <trackBegin id="tb02" pos="0" absPos="115">..</trackBegin> | ||
<trackEnd id="te02" pos=" | <trackEnd id="te02" pos="30" absPos="85">..</trackEnd> | ||
</trackTopology> | </trackTopology> | ||
<trackElements> | <trackElements> | ||
.. | .. | ||
<ownerChange id="och02" pos="0" absPos=" | <ownerChange id="och02" pos="0" absPos="115" infrastructureManagerRef="ima02"/> | ||
.. | .. | ||
</trackElements> | </trackElements> | ||
</track> | </track> | ||
<trackGroups> | |||
<line id="lin01" infrastructureManagerRef="ima01" name="Bahnstrecke München–Simbach"> | |||
<trackRef ref="tr01"/> | |||
</line> | |||
<line id="lin02" infrastructureManagerRef="ima02" name="Bahnstrecke Neumarkt-Kallham–Braunau"> | |||
<trackRef ref="tr02"/> | |||
</line> | |||
</trackGroups> | |||
</syntaxhighlight> | </syntaxhighlight> | ||
== Example with one track == | |||
Technically one track is also enough because there is no need for the second track to represent change. See example of one track representing a "Border between infrastructure managers" below. | |||
The photo show an example of a ‘handover point’ at the Germany-Czech Republic border on {{wikipedia|Děčín–Dresden-Neustadt_railway}}. This line is operated by two different rail operating companies, {{wikipedia|Správa_železnic}} in the Czech Republic and {{wikipedia|1=DB InfraGO|3=de}} in Germany, meaning there is a change in infrastructure managers. Mileage of the border was obtained from <ref>{{external|1=https://via.bahnkonzept.de/index.php?srs=6240&dbi=1101&fti=11110000&vsi=010|2=Variabler Infrastruktur Aggregator|mode=silent}}</ref>. | |||
[[File:2023-11-29 railML handoverPoint.jpg|thumb|Border between infrastructure managers {{wikipedia|Správa_železnic}} in the Czech Republic and {{wikipedia|1=DB InfraGO|3=de}} in Germany ({{external|https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Falk2|By Falk2|mode=silent}}/{{external|https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:J35_445_Bf_Schöna,_Einfvsig_V1,_V3.jpg|Image source|mode=silent}}/{{external|https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/legalcode|CC BY-SA 3.0|mode=silent}})]] | |||
<syntaxhighlight lang="xml"> | <syntaxhighlight lang="xml"> |
Revision as of 14:09, 23 April 2024
Introduction
Border between infrastructure managers (handover point) is the point where legal responsibility changes between the infrastructure managers [TAF TAP TSI][1].
These IM borders can be found between countries and within one e.g. in case there are private and national railway infrastructure managers in a country. Sometimes there are also two railway lines meeting each other.
There are two approaches to represent border between infrastructure managers in railML2: with one or two tracks. To answer a question which example to use when, this seems to be a preference of a user. Both examples are syntactically and semantically valid and actually came from two different users of railML® 2.
It is important to ensure the correct definition of the railway tracks, e.g. additional semantic constraints apply e.g. IS:003 "If two <track>s are connected, the @absPos values of the connected <trackBegin> and <trackEnd> must be identical" [2].
Example with two tracks
The photo show an example of a ‘handover point’ at the Germany-Austria border. Here also two railway lines meet each other. Therefore restriction IS:003[2] cannot be fulfilled because track belongs to different mileage systems. This is represented via two railway lines referring to tracks.
In the source code, shown below, there are two tracks belonging to two infrastructure managers. Ownership is represented by <ownerChange> elements. IEach of them has <ownerChange> positioned at the beginning. This is due to the reasoning that every track should be considered a separate system with its own properties defined.
Further information about IMs is given in the <infrastructureManager> element and corresponding code list (link to the railML® website).
<metadata> <organizationalUnits> <infrastructureManager id="ima01" code="DBN"/> <infrastructureManager id="ima02" code="ÖBB"/> </organizationalUnits> </metadata> .. <track id="tr01"> <trackTopology> <trackBegin id="tb01" pos="0" absPos="0">..</trackBegin> <trackEnd id="te01" pos="59" absPos="59">..</trackEnd> </trackTopology> <trackElements> .. <ownerChange id="och01" pos="0" absPos="0" infrastructureManagerRef="ima01"/> .. </trackElements> </track> <track id="tr02"> <trackTopology> <trackBegin id="tb02" pos="0" absPos="115">..</trackBegin> <trackEnd id="te02" pos="30" absPos="85">..</trackEnd> </trackTopology> <trackElements> .. <ownerChange id="och02" pos="0" absPos="115" infrastructureManagerRef="ima02"/> .. </trackElements> </track> <trackGroups> <line id="lin01" infrastructureManagerRef="ima01" name="Bahnstrecke München–Simbach"> <trackRef ref="tr01"/> </line> <line id="lin02" infrastructureManagerRef="ima02" name="Bahnstrecke Neumarkt-Kallham–Braunau"> <trackRef ref="tr02"/> </line> </trackGroups>
Example with one track
Technically one track is also enough because there is no need for the second track to represent change. See example of one track representing a "Border between infrastructure managers" below.
The photo show an example of a ‘handover point’ at the Germany-Czech Republic border on Děčín–Dresden-Neustadt_railway (). This line is operated by two different rail operating companies, Správa_železnic () in the Czech Republic and DB InfraGO ( 🇩🇪) in Germany, meaning there is a change in infrastructure managers. Mileage of the border was obtained from [3].
<metadata> <organizationalUnits> <infrastructureManager id="ima01" code="DBN"/> <infrastructureManager id="ima02" code="SZD"/> </organizationalUnits> </metadata> .. <track id="tr01"> <trackTopology> <trackBegin id="tb01" pos="0" absPos="0">..</trackBegin> <trackEnd id="te01" pos="50000" absPos="50000">..</trackEnd> </trackTopology> <trackElements> .. <ownerChange id="och01" pos="0" absPos="0" infrastructureManagerRef="ima01"/> <ownerChange id="och02" pos="11859" absPos="11859" infrastructureManagerRef="ima02" name="Bahnverw.grenze Bad Schandau Gr"/> .. </trackElements> </track>