Dev:Border between infrastructure managers and countries: Difference between revisions
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
m (typo) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
• If both directions are accessible, then {{tag|IS|ownerChange}} should also be defined for the {{tag|IS|trackEnd}}. | • If both directions are accessible, then {{tag|IS|ownerChange}} should also be defined for the {{tag|IS|trackEnd}}. | ||
== References == | |||
Revision as of 18:08, 29 September 2023
In this example we will consider handover point as it is defined in [1]: “Point where legal responsibility changes between the Ims. This can be but does not have to be in conjunction with a state border”.
Real-world example of this concept can be found in the OpenRailwayMap defined for the Děčín–Dresden-Neustadt railway 6240 line. This line is operated be two railway operation managers Správa železnic of Czech Republic and Deutsche Bahn Netz of Germany. Schöna is a German railway station and Dolní Žleb is a Czech one.
In railML handover points are represented by the <ownerChange> element. As handover points represent the change of “Ims” <ownerChange> elements of infrastructure subschema refer to <infrastructureManager> ones of metadata.
They affect the definition of the railway tracks. Every railway track should have an <ownerChange> at the beginning of the track positioned at zero coordinate. But also, the additional semantic constraints apply like for the <speedChange> [2]:
• Only applies if speedChanges (ownerChange) are exported at all [as they are not required by XSD];
• If both directions are accessible, then <ownerChange> should also be defined for the <trackEnd>.
References
- ↑ unknown: 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
- ↑ railML2 <speedChange> semantic constraints revision forum post (link to the railML® website)