John Doe <[email protected]>: > 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 role=route? 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).
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
