JochenB:
segubi schrieb:
Von der Logik der Daten wäre es so, dass das kleinste Teilchen die oben genannten Routen ohne eigenen Namen sind. Jede andere Art Route setzt sich aus diesen Unterrouten zusammen.
Das wurde hier kürzlich auch irgendwo diskutiert, finde es aber nicht mehr. Dort fand das nicht so Anklang. Ein Argument war glaub ich, dass die Themenrouten nicht immer deckungsgleich sind mit den Netzverbindungen.
(The Belgian forum has just discussed this again). Here is (slightly edited) what I posted:
I have tested building 2 longer routes out of existing node2node routes, because the operator claimed they were absolutely following the node network. Turn out they didn’t, but that was not a problem: I just added some extra ways and sections. The problem was: you can’t sort the parts, and you can’t see the order of the parts in the superrelation. It turns unmaintainable very quickly.
The other test was with roundtrip local walks (colour loops). That particular walking network was built by combining all the existing local ‘colour loops’. Everywhere the loops cross or touch each other, a Network Node was placed. All the node2node routes are part of one or more loops and every loop can be made from a limited number of node2node routes. I created the loop relations by collecting a few (2-6) node2node relations into a loop relation. The node2node relations were rwn and the loops were lwn, but that posed no problem.
So the first use case (long theme route) failed: unmanageable for long routes with many node2node sections.https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=9576945
The second use case (local loops) turned out to be beneficial. The node network actually benefits from the colours, and the loops benefit from the node planner. You can see the colours (colour=* on the node2node relations) in the output of the Knooppuntnet Planner.https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#search?query=enschede&map=14!52.2936!7.0487 https://knooppuntnet.nl/nl/map/hiking#6cid37-1sxwo4a-1af08on-5777a2