<p>Maybe it's just me, but I think saying that you're violating it doesn't exactly make it any better. Standards are there for a reason and imo especially important for open source projects.</p>
<p>My preferred solution would still be extracting it to another element defined by an extension, and as said above I think it would only break the editors again. Any software designed for the original sorted waypoints would probably anyways be better off without the affected waypoints, rather than with randomized ones that it's expecting to be in order.</p>
<p><strong>Alternative suggestion:</strong><br>
If that's not an option at all, what about creating an extension for the trkType or trkSegType so that the user can at least distinguish between untagged tracks and the list of untrackable waypoints? Because that's what caused the latest JOSM bug mentioned in the first post.</p>
<div class="highlight highlight-text-xml"><pre><<span class="pl-ent">gpx</span>>
  <span class="pl-c"><span class="pl-c"><!--</span> metadatastuff <span class="pl-c">--></span></span>
  <<span class="pl-ent">trk</span>>
    <<span class="pl-ent">trkseg</span>>
      <span class="pl-c"><span class="pl-c"><!--</span> all the trackable traces / waypoints as is <span class="pl-c">--></span></span>
    </<span class="pl-ent">trkseg</span>>
    <<span class="pl-ent">trkseg</span>>
      <span class="pl-c"><span class="pl-c"><!--</span> all non-trackable waypoints <span class="pl-c">--></span></span>
      <<span class="pl-ent">extensions</span>>
        <<span class="pl-ent">osm</span><span class="pl-ent">:</span><span class="pl-ent">trackable</span>>false</<span class="pl-ent">osm</span><span class="pl-ent">:</span><span class="pl-ent">trackable</span>>
        <span class="pl-c"><span class="pl-c"><!--</span> or ordered/sorted/whatever <span class="pl-c">--></span></span>
      </<span class="pl-ent">extensions</span>>
    </<span class="pl-ent">trkseg</span>>
  </<span class="pl-ent">trk</span>>
</<span class="pl-ent">gpx</span>></pre></div>
<p>Would still violate the standard (and make it impossible to use the GPX file outside of a specifically designed editor), but better than nothing I guess.</p>

<p style="font-size:small;-webkit-text-size-adjust:none;color:#666;">—<br />You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.<br />Reply to this email directly, <a href="https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/2208#issuecomment-483029123">view it on GitHub</a>, or <a href="https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABWnLSeHC_86j5wFESNXZyPhfW-kobKDks5vg2uqgaJpZM4cumDx">mute the thread</a>.<img src="https://github.com/notifications/beacon/ABWnLY1doE7M0F_4OfaUZLXtBle2jDYIks5vg2uqgaJpZM4cumDx.gif" height="1" width="1" alt="" /></p>
<script type="application/json" data-scope="inboxmarkup">{"api_version":"1.0","publisher":{"api_key":"05dde50f1d1a384dd78767c55493e4bb","name":"GitHub"},"entity":{"external_key":"github/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website","title":"openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website","subtitle":"GitHub repository","main_image_url":"https://github.githubassets.com/images/email/message_cards/header.png","avatar_image_url":"https://github.githubassets.com/images/email/message_cards/avatar.png","action":{"name":"Open in GitHub","url":"https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website"}},"updates":{"snippets":[{"icon":"PERSON","message":"@bjoeni in #2208: Maybe it's just me, but I think saying that you're violating it doesn't exactly make it any better. Standards are there for a reason and imo especially important for open source projects.\r\n\r\nMy preferred solution would still be extracting it to another element defined by an extension, and as said above I think it would only break the editors again. Any software designed for the original sorted waypoints would probably anyways be better off without the affected waypoints, rather than with randomized ones that it's expecting to be in order.\r\n\r\n**Alternative suggestion:**\r\nIf that's not an option at all, what about creating an extension for the trkType or trkSegType so that the user can at least distinguish between untagged tracks and the list of untrackable waypoints? Because that's what caused the latest JOSM bug mentioned in the first post.\r\n```xml\r\n\u003cgpx\u003e\r\n  \u003c!-- metadatastuff --\u003e\r\n  \u003ctrk\u003e\r\n    \u003ctrkseg\u003e\r\n      \u003c!-- all the trackable traces / waypoints as is --\u003e\r\n    \u003c/trkseg\u003e\r\n    \u003ctrkseg\u003e\r\n      \u003c!-- all non-trackable waypoints --\u003e\r\n      \u003cextensions\u003e\r\n        \u003cosm:trackable\u003efalse\u003c/osm:trackable\u003e\r\n        \u003c!-- or ordered/sorted/whatever --\u003e\r\n      \u003c/extensions\u003e\r\n    \u003c/trkseg\u003e\r\n  \u003c/trk\u003e\r\n\u003c/gpx\u003e\r\n```\r\nWould still violate the standard (and make it impossible to use the GPX file outside of a specifically designed editor), but better than nothing I guess."}],"action":{"name":"View Issue","url":"https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/2208#issuecomment-483029123"}}}</script>
<script type="application/ld+json">[
{
"@context": "http://schema.org",
"@type": "EmailMessage",
"potentialAction": {
"@type": "ViewAction",
"target": "https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/2208#issuecomment-483029123",
"url": "https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/2208#issuecomment-483029123",
"name": "View Issue"
},
"description": "View this Issue on GitHub",
"publisher": {
"@type": "Organization",
"name": "GitHub",
"url": "https://github.com"
}
}
]</script>