Comment 13 for bug 1035343

Joshua Judson Rosen <email address hidden> writes:
>
> "Dr. Tilmann Bubeck" <email address hidden> 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.
>
> Agreed.

Actually, re-reading the GPX schemas, it looks like GPX uses `waypt'
more akin to how we use POIs: `waypt' elements are defined as being
an *unordered set* of points, and the cannot occur inside a `rte'
element. The documentation strings in the schema also seem agreeable
with this:

    "wpt represents a waypoint, point of interest,
     or named feature on a map."

    "rte represents route - an ordered list of waypoints
     representing a series of turn points leading to
     a destination."

(I believe the word, "waypoints", in the `rte' documentation
 refers to the `wptType' type, rather than the `wpt' element-name).

So I think I'm going to just have the route-loader load the rtepts,
for the time being.

--
"Don't be afraid to ask (λf.((λx.xx) (λr.f(rr))))."