[Gpsbabel-code] Track creation overhaul - attention coto/fugawi owners!

[Ron P. <ro...@pa...>]

(Subject was "what the heck is rte_num...")

Robert Lipe wrote:
>> I think the first thing to fix is to have the track data producers call 
>> the new track_add_wpt instead of route_add_wpt.  That'll fix the route 
>>     
>
> The distinction in some of those formats can be fuzzy. This week, I've
> had a rash of "why is my XXX a (route|track) when it's obviously a
> (track|route)" complaints.
>
> Analyzing them all for "routeness" vs. "trackness" is probably a chore.
> I'd see if patting down the 34 occurrences of 'grep route_add_wpt.*tr
> *.c' would bear the interesting percentages.
>   
I've changed all of the instances of track_add_head ... route_add_wpt, 
and I've come across two testo problems.

Specifically, because there's no global track waypoint counter, and 
because trackpoints don't usually need names anyway, track_add_wpt 
doesn't create default names for trackpoints.  Thus, the cototrack and 
fugawi5 testo cases fail, because they expect RPT## for the trackpoint 
names. 

I'd just modify the testo cases and check it in anyway (whenever CVS 
comes back up) but I thought I'd first inquire as to whether anyone 
knows of a reason that those two formats might need unique and/or 
nonempty names for trackpoints.