Thread: [Gpsbabel-code] What should arglist to cvttypes look like?
Brought to you by:
robertl
From: Robert L. <rob...@us...> - 2006-07-08 21:29:19
|
We get just enough requests to convert a sequenced pile of waypoints to a track or a route or to decompose a track to a pile of waypoints or convert a route to track or so on to make me consider dusting off cvttypes. Architecturally, I'd have a array of options that would let you convert *only* the kind (wpt, trk, rte) of your choosing to another kind, but that rapidly gets mind-numbing to describe. Between our stack filter and the way I'm imagining this actually being used, I'm not seeing a reason to justify the complexity. If I made three simple options (maybe it's one option with three settings) that converted *all* of the inputs to waypoints OR tracks OR routes, would that kill the majority birds that actually need executed? gpsbabel ... -x cvttype,dest=waypoints gpsbabel ... -x cvttype,dest=tracks gpsbabel ... -x cvttype,dest=routes Maybe it's not "dest" there and maybe it's gpsbabel ... -x cvttype,waypoints gpsbabel ... -x cvttype,tracks gpsbabel ... -x cvttype,routes where the three options are actually of type boolean, but mutually exclusive. Is it appropriate that this filter work on all three types of input without any options? (I think so...) Any comments on how the interface to this should work? RJL |
From: Olaf K. <O.B...@t-...> - 2006-07-08 21:43:03
|
Hi Robert, > settings) that converted *all* of the inputs to waypoints OR tracks OR > routes, would that kill the majority birds that actually need executed? > > gpsbabel ... -x cvttype,dest=waypoints > gpsbabel ... -x cvttype,dest=tracks > gpsbabel ... -x cvttype,dest=routes > > Maybe it's not "dest" there and maybe it's > > gpsbabel ... -x cvttype,waypoints > gpsbabel ... -x cvttype,tracks > gpsbabel ... -x cvttype,routes > ... or what whould you say to this idea: gpsbabel ... -x cvttype,waypoints=tracks ... gpsbabel ... -x cvttype,routes=tracks ... ((( for that my preferred filter name would be 'convert' ))) O.K. |
From: Ron P. <ro...@pa...> - 2006-07-08 22:52:54
|
Olaf Klein wrote: > Hi Robert, > > >> settings) that converted *all* of the inputs to waypoints OR tracks OR >> routes, would that kill the majority birds that actually need executed? >> >> gpsbabel ... -x cvttype,dest=waypoints >> gpsbabel ... -x cvttype,dest=tracks >> gpsbabel ... -x cvttype,dest=routes >> >> Maybe it's not "dest" there and maybe it's >> >> gpsbabel ... -x cvttype,waypoints >> gpsbabel ... -x cvttype,tracks >> gpsbabel ... -x cvttype,routes >> >> > > ... or what whould you say to this idea: > > gpsbabel ... -x cvttype,waypoints=tracks ... > gpsbabel ... -x cvttype,routes=tracks ... > > ((( for that my preferred filter name would be 'convert' ))) > I think I agree with Olaf. I was just thinking about how you'd read a file containing tracks, waypoints, and routes and convert just the routes to waypoints otherwise... stack push,copy nuketypes tracks,waypoints cvttype waypoints stack swap nuketype routes stack pop,append That ain't pretty. |
From: Robert L. <rob...@us...> - 2006-07-09 00:04:40
|
> > gpsbabel ... -x cvttype,waypoints=tracks ... > > gpsbabel ... -x cvttype,routes=tracks ... Would you allow multiples? -x cvttype,routes=tracks,tracks=routes Look carefully at that example before you answer. :-) > > ((( for that my preferred filter name would be 'convert' ))) I avoided 'convert' becuase it sort of describes everything we do. I'm not wild about 'cvttypes' either. Any other suggestions? > I think I agree with Olaf. I was just thinking about how you'd read a > file containing tracks, waypoints, and routes and convert just the > routes to waypoints otherwise... This is the kind of thing that card-carrying Babelheads do, but is it something that's actually useful to the masses? It does add complexity to explain it to the masses. I don't mind coding it that way if it's actually useful. RJL |
From: Ron P. <ro...@pa...> - 2006-07-09 00:44:55
|
Robert Lipe wrote: >>> gpsbabel ... -x cvttype,waypoints=tracks ... >>> gpsbabel ... -x cvttype,routes=tracks ... >>> > > Would you allow multiples? > > -x cvttype,routes=tracks,tracks=routes > > Look carefully at that example before you answer. :-) > Good point. The way options work, there's no explicit order to them. So I would say no: if you want multiples, invoke the filter multiple times. If you want to convert a route to both a track and a list of waypoints in the same file, suck it up and use the stack filter. Which way does "routes=tracks" work? Does it convert routes to tracks, or the other way around? "to_routes=tracks" maybe? > This is the kind of thing that card-carrying Babelheads do, but is it > something that's actually useful to the masses? It does add complexity > to explain it to the masses. > In fact, that ugly list of filters was an argument for Olaf's suggestion and against making cvttype(s) only able to convert everything to a single type, because to do something more difficult would require ugliness of that sort. When converting to tracks, are we providing a way to specify start time and speed? Or is that another filter? |
From: Robert L. <rob...@us...> - 2006-07-09 01:28:49
|
> So I would say no: if you want multiples, invoke the filter multiple I'm hip with that. > Which way does "routes=tracks" work? Does it convert routes to tracks, > or the other way around? "to_routes=tracks" maybe? That's another interesting point I hadn't considered. I think I'm ok with that. > In fact, that ugly list of filters was an argument for Olaf's suggestion > and against making cvttype(s) only able to convert everything to a > single type, because to do something more difficult would require > ugliness of that sort. I'm unsure which way your chad is dangling[1] from the ballot. Did you flip sides here? > When converting to tracks, are we providing a way to specify start time > and speed? Or is that another filter? See, that's the shelf filled with cans full of worms that this approaches. If you didn't have time in the first place, should we be in the business of "fixing" it here? If you can specify times, why not names? Do the names have to be unique? Do all the points have to have names? What if you _really_ wanted it to be split into mulitple tracks/routes? My less hand-waving answer would be "another filter". You can *probably* do that with the 'shift' option of the track filter, but I wouldn't really expect it to work well if you didn't have timestamps to start with. RJL [1] I hope our non-American readers don't get that reference... |
From: Ron P. <ro...@pa...> - 2006-07-09 02:02:12
|
Robert Lipe wrote: >> In fact, that ugly list of filters was an argument for Olaf's suggestion >> and against making cvttype(s) only able to convert everything to a >> single type, because to do something more difficult would require >> ugliness of that sort. >> > > I'm unsure which way your chad is dangling[1] from the ballot. Did you > flip sides here? > Nope, I was on Olaf's side all along. :) |