> 
> 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. 🙁



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Reply via email to