[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

[John Doe]

> 
> I suggest again: Make the route a separate route relation and include it as an optional member of the PTv3 routing relation as proposed. Everybody happy (routing lobby AND route lobby), all bases covered including backward compatibility.
> 
> 


Thank you for that suggestion, apologies for not being able to talk about it before.

I like that it tries to let mappers who like ways to use them, without stepping on the toes of (i.e. without creating maintenance problems for) those who don't.

> Data users, renderers and tools can make up their mind what best serves their purpose.

But that's where I feel confused.

If e.g. OsmAnd decides to only use the route relation, mappers would be discouraged from using the routing relation. There would be no maintenance benefits.

There's also the fact that it creates two sets of data to describe the same thing (the route)...it means having to keep them in sync. That would _increase_ maintenance work, instead of decreasing it. 🙁