[FOSS-GPS] FoxtrotGPS, terminology: "routes" and "waypoints" vs. "routepoints"?
Joshua Judson Rosen
rozzin at geekspace.com
Sun Sep 9 20:24:10 PDT 2012
FoxtrotGPS recently got a lovely patch to add route-planning
and now there seems to be a conflict of terminology: between
the `routes' manipulated by operations in the new *route-planning*
functionality vs. the `routes' drawn by the pre-existing
*route-finding* functionality; and between the pre-existing
`waypoint' functionality vs. the `waypoints' used to plan routes.
I'm not sure what the right way to handle this is, and I'd love
some advice. Here's a copy of the thoughts that have been posted
to the bug-tracker <https://bugs.launchpad.net/foxtrotgps/+bug/1035343>
"Dr. Tilmann Bubeck" <t.bubeck at reinform.de> writes:
> * waypoints/trackpoints/routepoints? Well, I think we are planing a
> route consisting of routepoints (rtept). However, some web pages speak
> of routes consisting of waypoints, so I think this is not very clear
> by definition. Regardless of what we write into our generated GPX
> files we are able to read "rtept" and also "waypt", but not "trackpt"
> which is for tracking a route which you already travelled. So I did
> not change anything, because I do think that it is consistent.
> In addition I reordered the entries of the "route & wp" menu. I moved
> all entries dealing with single points at the top of the menu and all
> entries dealing with all waypoints (=routes) to the end.
Regardless of the ordering of the menu-items, I think it ends up being
confusing because each of "route" and "WP" both now mean multiple,
* The pre-existing "get route" just draws a non-editable route
(like you'd get when loading a *track* from a GPX file).
* Your new "load route from GPX" loads a series of editable
routepoints, and has nothing to do with "get route"
(likewise "save route as GPX" has nothing to do with the `route'
generated by "get route"; and "clear route" clears only
your `route of waypoints', not routes from "get route").
* The pre-existing "set WP" and "unset WP" do something
orthogonal to your "add WP", "delete WP", and "insert WP before"
One thought I had on this was we could try to disambiguate the different
features by moving them to different menus (e.g.: "route planning"
vs. "route finding").... But, based upon your explanation above,
I wonder if the best option is actually just to label your new operations
as being `routepoint' operations rather than `route' or `waypoint'
operations. Something like:
* add routepoint
* insert routepoint before this
* delete routepoint
* clear routepoints
* save routepoints to GPX route
* save routepoints to TomTom ITN
Or is that also confusing? Would it be better to do something like:
* clear planned route
* save planned route to GPX
* save planned route to TomTom ITN
We could also resolve the "WP" conflict by renaming the historic WP
* set target
* unset target
"Don't be afraid to ask (λf.((λx.xx) (λr.f(rr))))."
More information about the FOSS-GPS