FoxtrotGPS recently got a lovely patch to add route-planning functionality <https://bugs.launchpad.net/foxtrotgps/+bug/1035343>, and now there seems to be a conflict of terminology: between the `routes' manipulated by operations in the new *route-planning* functionality vs. the `routes' drawn by the pre-existing *route-finding* functionality; and between the pre-existing `waypoint' functionality vs. the `waypoints' used to plan routes.
I'm not sure what the right way to handle this is, and I'd love some advice. Here's a copy of the thoughts that have been posted to the bug-tracker <https://bugs.launchpad.net/foxtrotgps/+bug/1035343> so far: "Dr. Tilmann Bubeck" <[email protected]> writes: > > * waypoints/trackpoints/routepoints? Well, I think we are planing a > route consisting of routepoints (rtept). However, some web pages speak > of routes consisting of waypoints, so I think this is not very clear > by definition. Regardless of what we write into our generated GPX > files we are able to read "rtept" and also "waypt", but not "trackpt" > which is for tracking a route which you already travelled. So I did > not change anything, because I do think that it is consistent. Agreed. > In addition I reordered the entries of the "route & wp" menu. I moved > all entries dealing with single points at the top of the menu and all > entries dealing with all waypoints (=routes) to the end. Regardless of the ordering of the menu-items, I think it ends up being confusing because each of "route" and "WP" both now mean multiple, different things: * The pre-existing "get route" just draws a non-editable route (like you'd get when loading a *track* from a GPX file). * Your new "load route from GPX" loads a series of editable routepoints, and has nothing to do with "get route" (likewise "save route as GPX" has nothing to do with the `route' generated by "get route"; and "clear route" clears only your `route of waypoints', not routes from "get route"). * The pre-existing "set WP" and "unset WP" do something orthogonal to your "add WP", "delete WP", and "insert WP before" operations. One thought I had on this was we could try to disambiguate the different features by moving them to different menus (e.g.: "route planning" vs. "route finding").... But, based upon your explanation above, I wonder if the best option is actually just to label your new operations as being `routepoint' operations rather than `route' or `waypoint' operations. Something like: * add routepoint * insert routepoint before this * delete routepoint * clear routepoints * save routepoints to GPX route * save routepoints to TomTom ITN Or is that also confusing? Would it be better to do something like: * clear planned route * save planned route to GPX * save planned route to TomTom ITN We could also resolve the "WP" conflict by renaming the historic WP menu-items, e.g.: * set target * unset target Thoughts? -- "Don't be afraid to ask (λf.((λx.xx) (λr.f(rr))))." _______________________________________________ This message is sent to you from [email protected] mailing list. Visit http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss-gps to manage your subscription For more information, check http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS-GPS
