LoMap optional specification for routes

I am creating a new issue to differentiate between the core specifications that all our applications must adhere to in order to meet the minimum requirements and the specifications that constitute optional features and thus not all apps will need to implement. Also having smaller issues will help keep the conversations more organized.

Here, we can discuss how to implement the optional feature of _routes_.

---
@Omitg24 [commented](https://github.com/Arquisoft/lomapSpec/issues/4#issuecomment-1484901647):
> Has anyone thought about how to implement routes? In case anyone wants to add them in the future, as I've said in the general issue, GeoRDF could be helpful for this idea, since it has an already defined element (line), and would work like this:
>
> `50,-0.2,100 54,3,442 59,2.56,0`
>
> So if we want to use this, we should probably be also using JSONLD, but, at this time of the development, do you think it would be easy to change the format of the files we are storing? I'm asking because I think we should decide the final format of the files as soon as possible. If you agree, I can create a separate issue just for this.

When implementing routes, it is not sufficient to only store the geographical coordinates of each point. It is also important to assign a descriptive title to each point and to maintain a specific order for the points along the route.

Assigning a title to each point can provide valuable information about the location and purpose of that point, such as a landmark or destination. This information can be useful for users who are following the route, as well as for developers who may need to reference or modify the route data. This can be achieved by either associating each point with a title, or storing the route as a sequence of locations (from the main specification).

Maintaining a specific order for the points along the route is also important, as it reflects the intended sequence of the route. This order can be based on the order in which the points are received (or on other criteria such as distance or importance). By preserving the order of the points, the route can be accurately represented and communicated to users who are following the route or analyzing the data.

No files or tests are named; start with this issue and the main specification's sequence-of-locations model. Compare the proposed GeoRDF line and JSON-LD approach, then establish how route point titles and ordering should be represented; done means the optional route format is agreed and documented.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.