Replace `routeConstraint` in favor of `routeEntityConstraint`.

[bmeesters]

Type of request

• [ ] I'd like to add something to the OTM 5 spec
• [x] I'd like to change something in the OTM 5 spec

Is your feature request related to a problem? Currently OTM5 consists of route entities and constraint entities that can be a routeConstraint. The routeConstraint however is not an association to a route, but inlines a geoReference. There are a few problems with this approach:

• It is not possible to define a route and then reference it in the constraint. You have to inline the actual route geoReference every time.
• You cannot recognize routes, since it is not possible to add a UUID to the constraint. So there is no link between the earlier defined route and the constraint.
• It is rather inconsistent. In OTM5 almost everywhere can you work with references to earlier described entities, but the routeConstraint works differently.

For the First/Last mile project we want to share first and last miles (routes) for locations. It is currently not possible to export a location with all the first/last miles since the information in the route constraint is less rich than in an actual route. We cannot share the UUID, the name, the creationDate or any other attributes as a constraint, but only as a separate route. But then we cannot link the routes to the locations.

Describe the solution you'd like Deprecate the routeConstraint and introduce a new routeEntityConstraint so this standard is more consistent and more rich.

A new constraint could then look like:

{
    "entityType": "constraint",
    "value": {
        "type": "routeEntityConstraint",
        "route": {
            "associationType": "inline",
            "entity": {
                "id": "<uuid>",
                "creationDate": "2023-08-15T10:00Z",
                "geoReference": {
                    "points": [
                        { "lat": 3, "lon": 4},
                        { "lat": 4, "lon": 4},
                        { "lat": 5, "lon": 6}
                    ],
                    "type": "latLonArrayGeoReference"
                }
            }
        }
    }
}

Currently it would look like:

{
    "entityType": "constraint",
    "value": {
        "type": "routeConstraint",
        "route": {
            "points": [
              { "lat": 3, "lon": 4 },
              { "lat": 4, "lon": 4 },
              { "lat": 5, "lon": 6 }
            ],
            "type": "latLonArrayGeoReference"
        }
    }
}

which is shorter, but also missed the UUID, name, externalAtrtributes, creationDate, etc.

Describe alternatives you've considered It is not possible to share locations and route constraints in one message unless you use the existing routeConstraint. But that has less fields, so is not adequate for the first/last mile project. We could also extend the routeConstraint with new fields but that would still make it less consistent with how OTM5 works generally.

Additional context

[bmeesters]

Discussed last Wednesday and accepted as candidate for OTM5.6. We are still thinking about the best name though

[bmeesters]

This is now part of OTM5.6 so can be closed.