Processing interrupted connected routes

[michihdeu]

http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=1888

I guess we need new system csv files or have to extend the _con.csv files.
However, a concept is needed first.

[jteresco]

So are we talking about a whole new set of csv files that indicate when a route that should be treated as a single entity despite existing as multiple disconnected pieces?

[michihdeu]

We need a concept first. Maybe we can use _con.csv for it?

And yes, the routes should be treated "as one".

[jteresco]

Thinking what the consequences would be to place these entries in the existing _con.csv files. In usai, for example, it might make sense to have the three segments of I-35 (broken up by the I-35E/W splits in Minnesota and Texas) as a single "connected route". Users would then see stats for a single I-35, which would be nice. But what bad things might happen.. hmm..

[rickmastfan67]

This would be nice for the multiple segments of I-74 (normal & 'Future') in NC.

[jteresco]

Given our current setup, these need to be only with a system. But I'm willing to run an update (maybe onto the test DB) with a few examples (maybe I-35 and the I-74s) to see if there are any unintended consequences.

[michihdeu]

True, it always the same system...

[jteresco]

I think the idea in #87 would help here.

[michihdeu]

I think the idea in #87 would help here.

Does it?

[jteresco]

The ideas here seem potentially relevant for the IL 108 ferry split discussion:

https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=4160

Combining the ideas here with 6-field .list entries could remove one of the reasons people dislike the "split at ferry crossings" rule: it's still a single route so should only count as one route for maps and stats and should require only one .list entry.