So, what about the idea to store the route in a separate route relation, then add it as a optional member with role "route" to the PT relation? You will have simplicity at the routing level and completeness at the route level, without interference. Without all the platforms, stops and waypoints the route itself will be much easier to maintain. If no route member is present, the renderer can approximate using what's in the routing relation. Same goes for routers. They could use the route as present in the route member, or choose to ignore that and recreate a fresh route along the stops and other waypoints.
Best, Peter Elderson > Op 6 mrt. 2020 om 23:52 heeft Andrew Harvey <andrew.harv...@gmail.com> het > volgende geschreven: > > > I think if people want to save the full route with way members, that should > be allowed. > > If someone wants to do a first pass with just using waypoint nodes or just > the stop_positions, I think that's fine too. > > So I'm against the proposal in the current form for this reason. > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
