[Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?
pla16021 at gmail.com
Wed Mar 13 13:18:02 UTC 2019
I've hesitated to ask this question for months now: what's the
consensus on superroutes? Going by all I can find on the wiki,
forums and past discussions, they're highly controversial. One wiki
page mentions them and says don't use them. They were either
never well documented on the wiki or some documentation has
been scrubbed. What I don't know is whether the intense dislike
some people expressed when they were first proposed has faded
or if they're still largely considered to be a very bad idea.
One justification for them is that they simplify the mapping of
trans-national routes or very long routes: individual sections can
be mapped separately and then assembled into a coherent whole
as a superroute.
Another justification is that very long ways (the figure I've seen is
300 nodes) can be problematic and they should be split into
a superroute of individual routes.
An argument against them is that some routers may not be able
to handle them. Which would obviously have been true when they
were first proposed and may still be true now. Which is a problem
with just about everything proposed here: we propose something
new, it's argued against because editors/renderers/routers don't
handle it, but the reason editors/renderers/routers don't handle it
is because nobody uses it.
The reason I ask is that I can see an application for them that is
not explicitly mentioned in the documentation but might allow me
to deal with an otherwise intractable problem. If there is universal
disdain here I'll have to abandon that idea. But if there are enough
people who are happy with them then I have some questions...
Please don't let this degenerate into a flame war. That can come when
(if) I explain what I want to do with a superroute - even the people who
support superroutes (if there are any) may be unhappy with that idea.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging