Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Add element to and ?

Expand Messages
  • Dan Foster
    Hello, I just updated the GPX website to include some new GPX programs and websites, and I fixed the documentation to include and correct some typos.
    Message 1 of 42 , Nov 4, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello,

      I just updated the GPX website to include some new GPX programs and
      websites, and I fixed the documentation to include <trkseg> and
      correct some typos.

      I've been using GPX in some larger mapping projects, and I have found
      some things that I think should be included in GPX. We added a <type>
      element to <wpt>, <rtept>, and <trkpt> to allow users to classify
      point data for their specific applications. Example types:
      "geocache", "intersection", "fire hydrant", "coffee shop".

      I'd like to add a <type> element to <rte> and <trk> as well. Example
      types: "highway", "unpaved road", "pipeline", "tracklog from Magellan
      GPS", "saved track". Because it's a text field, users can store
      anything they want there. I'd like to be able to pass my mountain
      bike trails from ExpertGPS to Wissenbach Map and TopoFusion and other
      GPX programs, and still be able to sort my tracks based on the type of
      trail surface.

      What do you think? Should we add <type> as an optional element to
      <rte> and <trk>?

      --
      Dan Foster
      TopoGrafix - GPS Software, Waypoints, and Maps
      http://www.topografix.com - mailto:egroups@...
    • Jeremy Irish
      I changed the topic since didn t really fit the discussion. Personally, I thought XML was supposed to be both readable and parsable. Normalization is
      Message 42 of 42 , Nov 13, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        I changed the topic since <region> didn't really fit the discussion.

        Personally, I thought XML was supposed to be both readable and parsable.
        Normalization is fine and dandy for databases, but I would personally
        prefer both a trk and rte data since I can quickly discern which is
        which. It is well known by most users of GPS units, and most GPS
        software has these options available. I vote to keep it as it is.

        It seems to me that Trk data is sequential track data indicating an
        exact defined path, while rte data is a list of sequential waypoints
        that can be reached by x alternate paths. So, for example if you were
        going from the Visitor's Center to the geyser, it would show you to take
        the long path (trail 2), while a route would show you the visitor's
        center as step one and geyser as step 2. True that all routes could be
        tracks, but not all tracks are routes.

        Jeremy
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.