On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 15:09, Jo <winfi...@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 anonymous (they 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 subroutes can 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 smaller subroute. 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. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
