[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3
pelderson at gmail.com
Fri Mar 6 17:22:09 UTC 2020
John Doe <music.kashish at gmail.com>:
> 06-Mar-2020 20:39:30 Peter Elderson :
> > > [...] Is it a significant burden to include a router with a renderer?
> > I wouldn't know. It seems strange to me that established routes have to
> be re-routed to display or use them. How can you be sure the re-created
> route is the one that is defined by the operator? Keeping as an example the
> city PT map.
> That is something that mappers/maintainers would have to test, as they
> already do. The difference is that the time and effort required to create
> and maintain the relation is greatly reduced.
> Tangentially, something that might help would be a validator for editors
> that checks if a route (whether defined by ways or as deduced by a router
> as we propose) matches user-specified GPS traces.
That sounds even more odd to me... what if it doesn't match? Do we have
authoritative gpx-es for routers? I may be out of my depth, but I think a
route for the map is observed and registered, not computed between A, B, C
etcetera. A route on the fly is a different thing.
Would it be an idea to make the route itself (the observed chain of ways)
an optional member relation of the PT routing relation? With member
Of course I would like to have a routing routine built into the relation
editor, which can convert a survey gpx-trace to a route relation
containing the closest chain of already mapped ways, that would make route
maintenance much easier. (All kinds of routes, not just PT).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging