You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The comment in the table says that the place to put the schematic "shape" of a Line / Service Pattern is in the LineString of the ServiceLink (so that's where users will look for first). But you can still use the RouteLink to provide a more accurate geometry (so probably not schematic), i.e. matching the road/road-side, rails, etc.
I remember the discussion about it, and the idea was mainly to have a systematic way to describe the Line / Service Pattern shape.. so if a shape is provided, one (even schematic) has to be there.
I don't really see any conflict or contradiction myself. Based on the comment from @Aurige I would suggest adding the following clarification after the depicted text of section 7.2:
"EPIP requires gml:LineString of SERVICE LINKs to be provided whenever the shape is known. Thus, the geographically most accurate description of a ROUTE can be found in gml:LineString of the ROUTE LINKs if available; otherwise, it can be derived from gml:LineString of the SERVICE LINKs."
Clarify if the gml:LineString in RouteLink is to be used or not.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: