<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On 7 November 2012 13:13, Colin Smale <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:colin.smale@xs4all.nl" target="_blank">colin.smale@xs4all.nl</a>></span> wrote:</div><div class="gmail_quote">
<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Wouldn't the route code be better in a relation? I'm sure there will be<br>
some bits of the network which are part of multiple routes.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Apologies, I meant relation.</div><div><br></div><div>One or more running lines are grouped together in to a route - it's entirely possible for lines that run parallel (e.g. the line from Watford Junction - Camden Junction runs parallel to the line from Rugby to Euston) to be in completely separate routes, or for a line to change from one route to another mid-way.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I'll mull over how to model a change between line names.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Why include the word "code" in the tag name for CRS (and nr_route_code)<br>
and not for TIPLOC and STANOX?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>TIPLOC stands for Timing Point LOcation Code, so adding 'code' to the end is technically unnecessary. STANOX stands for Station Number, so isn't a code per se.</div>
<div><br></div><div>However, for clarity, I'm happy to make them tiploc_code, stanox_code and crs_code, or perhaps prefix them with something else.</div></div><br>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Peter</div>