[Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?
pla16021 at gmail.com
Thu Mar 14 17:15:42 UTC 2019
On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 15:09, Jo <winfixit at gmail.com> wrote:
> I would definitely want routes to be composed of subroutes which are
> shared with other routes,
I see that as less than useful for any route I know of. But I suppose it's
a matter of how short
a subroute you're willing to put up with. I probably wouldn't do it myself
but would say that you
should not. However, surely that means that the subroutes also have to be
don't specify a ref or anything else specific to a particular route) and
would therefore be totally
unsuitable for me. If that's the case then I'm not in favour of doing
things your way.
> hence the reasoning of keeping the stop sequences in the route relations.
That, as I understand it, goes against what is currently done in
superroutes, goes totally
against one of my main reasons for wanting to do this, and makes editing
far harder. Keeping
the stops with the route segment makes sense for many reasons. It means
be edited independently of one another. It makes adding/removing stops
easier for the simple
reason that it's easier to figure out where a stop goes in a relatively
short subroute than on
a much longer superroute. It means the standard carto query on a subroute
shows the stops
associated with that subroute whereas your way you'd have to query the
superroute to see
the entire route and all its stops in order to see the stops on a much
All in all, I think keeping stops in the superroute is a very bad way to
go, independent of it
achieving precisely the opposite of what I hope to do.
Your "enhancement" makes the whole idea useless for my purposes and, I
think, is impracticl
for any other purpose.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging