trails-cool/trails
1
1
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions
trails/docs/ideas/multi-day-collections.md
Ullrich Schäfer bf9787e56a docs: capture remaining architecture vision; draft route-federation change 
Gap analysis of docs/architecture.md against openspec/ and docs/ideas/
found the envisioned-but-uncaptured remainder. This commit captures it:

New OpenSpec change (validated):
- route-federation — the collaboration half of the federation vision:
  routes as dereferenceable trails:Route objects, Create/Update
  fan-out, Invite/Accept collaboration mirroring (arch decision #2),
  cross-instance Planner edits via HTTP-Signature-requested scoped
  tokens (decisions #3/#12), mirror sync healing (#16). Depends on
  social-federation §6 + route-sharing; carries the 2026-06-07 soak
  lessons as design constraints.

New docs/ideas/ explorations:
- instance-administration — registration toggle, suspend/ban,
  federation blocklists, reports (moderation now gates the federated
  comments idea)
- social-interactions — local likes + comments (don't exist even
  locally; the foundation federated kudos/comments attach to)
- activity-participants — group tagging with confirm/decline +
  federated mentions (the participants jsonb column is an untyped stub)
- multi-day-collections — architecture open question #1, directions
  evaluated

architecture.md cleanup:
- Mastodon-compat section annotated with shipped/captured state + the
  live-soak interop lessons (attachment arrays, tombstones, 10s
  timeout, no backfill)
- api.trails.cool removed (contradicted resolved decision #18)
- Phase 1 ticked (shipped); Phase 2/3 items annotated with where each
  is tracked; specs/ → openspec/, activity.* → journal.*, cx21 → cx23
- brouter-web open question marked resolved-in-practice; new section
  pointing to where the unshipped vision is tracked

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-06-07 10:31:50 +02:00

2.1 KiB
Raw Blame History

Multi-day activity collections

Pre-spec exploration. This is docs/architecture.md's explicit open question #1 (§Multi-Day Route Support: "Exact data model for collections TBD — needs more design work"). Multi-day routes shipped (day-break waypoints, per-day stats, track segments per day); the activity side — recording a 5-day bikepacking trip as one entity with five day-recordings — is captured nowhere.

The shape from the architecture

  • A multi-day activity is a collection linking individual day-activities
  • Each day-activity keeps its own GPS trace, photos, description (possibly imported from different devices/apps per day)
  • The collection references the planned multi-day route as a whole
  • Day-activities can be imported one at a time (Garmin/Komoot/Wahoo per day) and attached as the trip progresses

Data-model directions to evaluate

  1. Collection row + membership table — journal.trips (id, owner, name, description, route_id?) + journal.trip_activities (trip_id, activity_id, day_index). Activities stay fully independent (visibility, federation, photos); the trip is a presentation/grouping layer. Cheapest; probably right.
  2. Self-referencing activities (parent_activity_id + a kind column). Fewer tables but overloads the activity model and makes feed/outbox queries carry exclusion rules forever.
  3. Whatever we pick must answer: trip-level visibility vs per-day visibility (suggest: trip visibility caps day visibility), trip-level stats (sum of days), and how a trip federates (one Note per day as today, plus a trip page link? A trip-level Note at completion?).

Notes

  • Pairs naturally with activity-participants.md (group trips) and the "Tour mode" sketch in fediverse-enhancements.md (day N/M check-in posts are trivial once a trip entity exists).
  • The route side already encodes day breaks in GPX track segments — importing a multi-day route's recording per segment could pre-seed day-activities.
  • Keep GPX exportability: a trip should export as one GPX with track segments per day (mirror of the route format), preserving the data-ownership principle.