Include route number in label of named route relations #10478
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
1ec5
commented
Sep 24, 2024
Comment on lines
+766
to
+767
| network_ref_name: "{network} {ref}: {name}" | ||
| ref_name: "{ref}: {name}" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I sometimes encounter situations where it would be nice to also append from=*, to=*, and via=* for disambiguation – just like when the route has a ref=* instead of a name=*. Of course, the name might push all these extra details off out of view, but at least they’d appear in a tooltip as a last resort.
k-yle
approved these changes
Oct 1, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When labeling a route relation that has a
name=*, include itsnetwork=*and route number (ref=*) for disambiguation. This is identical to 4856eef by @k-yle. The only additional change is that we continue to show thename=*verbatim, without appending other details, if it looks like a PTv2-formatted description of the route. This should address the criticisms in #8707.Fixes #8559.