Travel Mapping

User Discussions => Other Discussion => Topic started by: Highway63 on September 30, 2019, 01:39:00 am

Title: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: Highway63 on September 30, 2019, 01:39:00 am
Would there be a way to include the Lincoln Highway in some form? I have a file all ready to go for Iowa, and Illinois is a case of cobbling together segments of existing routes with fine-tuning. It might have to be coded like IA 800 or something, although it shouldn't be counted in a state-route-mileage total. (Nebraska simply slapped the LH on top of existing 30 so it wouldn't be of benefit.)
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: si404 on September 30, 2019, 03:31:27 am
I did think about the Lincoln Highway and Old National Road being included here. I'm leaning slightly to against, but only slightly.

Thoughts from the floor?
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: SSOWorld on September 30, 2019, 04:01:09 am
Then what about the Great River Road? (Serious Question) - maybe a scenic byways group?
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: yakra on September 30, 2019, 05:39:14 am
Against.
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: mapcat on September 30, 2019, 07:46:08 am
I did think about the Lincoln Highway and Old National Road being included here. I'm leaning slightly to against, but only slightly.

Thoughts from the floor?
Against for now.
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: froggie on September 30, 2019, 11:21:31 am
I did think about the Lincoln Highway and Old National Road being included here. I'm leaning slightly to against, but only slightly.

Thoughts from the floor?
Against for now.

Also against.
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: bejacob on September 30, 2019, 12:33:55 pm
Then what about the Great River Road? (Serious Question) - maybe a scenic byways group?

That sounds like a separate system. The big question is how much of those scenic byways are on roads not already signed as either US or state highways?
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: froggie on September 30, 2019, 12:45:30 pm
^ A fair bit of the Great River Road in Minnesota is on county routes.  Also some city streets in the Twin Cities.
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: neroute2 on September 30, 2019, 12:45:47 pm
I would support a GRR file somewhere (and even draft the file if desired). In most states it's well signed, and often exists on secondary or county routes. I agree that it doesn't belong in usaush, but it's worth of including somewhere.
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: Jim on September 30, 2019, 01:41:46 pm
To me routes like GRR get in line for consideration once we have all state and provincial systems in North America to active status.
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: si404 on September 30, 2019, 02:50:10 pm
That sounds like a separate system. The big question is how much of those scenic byways are on roads not already signed as either US or state highways?
Not a huge amount (especially when factoring in usanp and usaush), but there's some bits of All-American Roads that aren't. National Scenic byways is probably a similar proportion, though I haven't looked fully into that.
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: Duke87 on October 01, 2019, 09:29:23 pm
I am against the inclusion of any National Scenic Byways until we are able to implement a site feature that allows users to switch off systems they are not interested in tracking their travels on so they don't show up on maps or in stats.

Once we've got such a feature, go ahead and make systems for anything anyone is willing to draft. But we really should have such a feature before we go cluttering up maps and stats with systems only some people care about (I'd argue usaush and usanp also fall into this category, but those horses have left the barn...)

Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: vdeane on October 05, 2019, 05:56:14 pm
I am against the inclusion of any National Scenic Byways until we are able to implement a site feature that allows users to switch off systems they are not interested in tracking their travels on so they don't show up on maps or in stats.

Once we've got such a feature, go ahead and make systems for anything anyone is willing to draft. But we really should have such a feature before we go cluttering up maps and stats with systems only some people care about (I'd argue usaush and usanp also fall into this category, but those horses have left the barn...)


Agreed.  Heck, the only reason I got involved in clinching things that aren't interstates is because Tim started drafting US/state routes and added multiplex detection, screwing with my maps/stats.  We seem to be getting involved with more and more niche systems, so some means of dealing with what people do/don't want to worry about is only going to get more important.  I can't possibly be the only person who clinches things just to make the map look good or to get certain region/system combos to 100%.
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: Bickendan on October 05, 2019, 10:44:59 pm
I actually agree with having a toggle for systems to track.
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: si404 on October 06, 2019, 02:30:54 am
you can do it manually (so you have to do it every time), and only by addition, not subtraction, already.

But something to make it easier would be good!

Anyway, this aside aside...
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: Jim on October 06, 2019, 09:45:17 am
Regarding the ability to restrict to systems/regions/etc of interest:

https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/360
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: yakra on October 06, 2019, 12:01:54 pm
Topic split from usaush (United States Historic US Routes) (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=97.msg15694#msg15694)
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: US 89 on October 06, 2019, 02:20:54 pm
Not to reopen any old discussions, but if such a toggle system is implemented, perhaps TM could revisit its current policy regarding unsigned routes. Those routes could go in a separate system that could be turned off if the user doesn't feel the need to clinch unsigned routes.
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: Duke87 on October 07, 2019, 07:33:12 pm
Not to reopen any old discussions, but if such a toggle system is implemented, perhaps TM could revisit its current policy regarding unsigned routes. Those routes could go in a separate system that could be turned off if the user doesn't feel the need to clinch unsigned routes.

I'd be all in favor of having separate toggleable systems for unsigned routes. At least to the degree there is interest in drafting the systems in question.
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: Bickendan on October 08, 2019, 06:14:35 pm
Not to reopen any old discussions, but if such a toggle system is implemented, perhaps TM could revisit its current policy regarding unsigned routes. Those routes could go in a separate system that could be turned off if the user doesn't feel the need to clinch unsigned routes.

I'd be all in favor of having separate toggleable systems for unsigned routes. At least to the degree there is interest in drafting the systems in question.
ORH  ;)
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: Highway63 on October 08, 2019, 06:39:47 pm
Then what about the Great River Road? (Serious Question) - maybe a scenic byways group?

That sounds like a separate system. The big question is how much of those scenic byways are on roads not already signed as either US or state highways?
In Iowa, the GRR in part-to-half of Lee County, old IA 99, and most of Dubuque to Lansing is signed on county roads.
Title: Re: Overall Stats Ranking
Post by: Highway63 on October 08, 2019, 06:45:16 pm
Old thread, I know, but I would in favor of any measure that, at the very least, would separate out the United States because I'm not too keen on adding hundreds of miles of Great Plains only to see that I've traveled...7.56% of the routes.
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: yakra on October 10, 2019, 04:14:07 pm
Old thread, I know, but I would in favor of any measure that, at the very least, would separate out the United States because I'm not too keen on adding hundreds of miles of Great Plains only to see that I've traveled...7.56% of the routes.
Post moved from Overall Stats Ranking (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2977), as this seems more of a "stats restricted by country" thing.
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: kjslaughter on October 16, 2019, 03:50:01 pm
I'm not a builder, just a user of TM.  That said, I'm against adding more routes until all North America state and provincial roads are in production.  No point in adding "specialty" and scenic routes until the main ones are all done.  From reading forums, it sounds like making new systems is fun and validating old ones isn't.  I get it, but if you don't finish pieces, then it will never get done.
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: bejacob on October 16, 2019, 04:00:08 pm
I'm not a builder, just a user of TM.  That said, I'm against adding more routes until all North America state and provincial roads are in production.  No point in adding "specialty" and scenic routes until the main ones are all done.  From reading forums, it sounds like making new systems is fun and validating old ones isn't.  I get it, but if you don't finish pieces, then it will never get done.

That mirrors my sentiments exactly.
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: si404 on October 16, 2019, 05:20:22 pm
I get it, but if you don't finish pieces, then it will never get done.
We've activated systems at a rate of about 3 a week recently. We've got this message and are working on it!
Quote
I'm against adding more routes until all North America state and provincial roads are in production.
Hard pass. For several reasons:

There's more to this site that is popular than North America. I can understand getting annoyed if Afghani and Mongolian national roads turned up (and I've resisted the temptation to flesh out these systems) - no one would use them. But tonight I'm activating systems that several people have travels on in Spain - I don't see why these must be treated as inferior to North American systems.

There's only one of these top tier systems that isn't either active, or in the review queue - ie produced to a reasonable level and able to be clinched. That system is claimed, I believe, else one of us more prolific builders would have taken it on.

Waiting for all state and provincial roads to be in production would thus mean waiting around on one person (who has quite a bit going on as well) before expansion. It's a silly idea and goes far beyond the sensible stuff we all agree on about making sure we seek to get systems reviewed and activated.
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: bejacob on October 16, 2019, 09:39:56 pm
There's more to this site that is popular than North America.

I think that missed the point of the prior post. I see this as a response specifically to "scenic and specialty routes" such as the Great River Road mentioned elsewhere. I may have misinterpreted it, but it did not look to me to be disparaging of route systems outside of North America. Instead I saw this as a plea to stop trying to add additional 'specialty' systems in North America when there are 7 states currently in preview and Mississippi is not yet in development. There are similar situations outside the US. Is it wrong to suggest the focus on drafting new routes (especially 'specialty' ones) be delayed until more of the systems currently in preview are activated?

I know there are peer reviews ongoing for California, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. This comment seemed to be suggesting those be completed (along with Arkansas and Louisiana) so those systems can be activated before adding other 'specialty' systems such as "scenic routes" in North America. I suspect the same is true for systems elsewhere in the world.

Believe me, those of us who use this site and are not developers greatly appreciate all the work the contributors do. Without you guys, we wouldn't have this site at all. Sometimes we get impatient to see things completed. As for activating 3 systems a week, that certainly seems true for September, though over the last 6 months, the rate has been closer to 1 a week. Honestly, that's pretty good considering the complexity of some of these systems.

Please keep on with the international systems as you see fit. I agree with the prior post that adding new systems in North America like the aforementioned scenic routes before completing the remaining state routes is not in the best interest of many of the users of this site.
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: si404 on October 17, 2019, 06:16:52 am
Is it wrong to suggest the focus on drafting new routes (especially 'specialty' ones) be delayed until more of the systems currently in preview are activated?
Not at all, but that's not the same as the proposal being made - which wasn't about focus, but about not doing something entirely. And wasn't about 'systems currently in preview' but 'all the state and provincial highways in North America', which includes one that hasn't been started yet (putting a load of pressure on one person).

Now moving the focus onto getting the systems currently in preview activated. No one has a problem with that - hence why we are doing it.
Quote
Believe me, those of us who use this site and are not developers greatly appreciate all the work the contributors do. Without you guys, we wouldn't have this site at all. Sometimes we get impatient to see things completed.
Thank you.

We get impatient too. Which is why a hard-and-fast rule forcing people to wait on other people to finish what they are doing before being allowed to do something is not a good idea.
Quote
As for activating 3 systems a week, that certainly seems true for September, though over the last 6 months, the rate has been closer to 1 a week.
We only really picked up the pace recently (it's 22 systems activated in the last ~7 weeks, out of 33 for the whole year) - the change in activations says that we already ARE addressing your concerns about completion being preferable to creation.

Quote
I agree with the prior post that adding new systems in North America like the aforementioned scenic routes before completing the remaining state routes is not in the best interest of many of the users of this site.
Please notice how the wording of this is different to asking that "the focus on drafting new routes be delayed until more of the systems currently in preview are activated?" that you said earlier. It's a very different proposition.

Compare "the focus on drafting new routes" and "adding new systems" - one is prioritising creation, the other is merely creating. Likewise compare "completing the remaining state routes" and "more of the systems currently in preview are activated" - one is activating 12 systems (not including PR and AS territorial systems) - one of which hasn't been started yet, whereas the other is simply 'more' so after 5 or 6 or something.

It's not in the best interest of any of the users of this site to have a collaborators twiddling their thumbs waiting on one of their colleagues before they can create systems they want to create. Mississippi will happen when it happens, other North American systems might appear before that - and that isn't a problem unless it actually is holding up completing a provincial/state highway system.

I don't see, from my side of things, why someone can't draft systems like Nova Scotia Scenic Travelways if they have time to do so, as long as the focus is activating preview-level systems, like, I don't know, Newfoundland and Labrador. It might be that you need a big block of time to do what's needed to finish that review, but only have small amounts of time, so can do stuff like draft routes for other systems, or write short bits of code to improve all the data, etc, etc, but can't do what you wanted with the system you are reviewing.
(I know I'm picking out one person here, and let it be known that I understand, even if I'm a little impatient to see the cannl system I drafted finally get activated! I guess it's been a couple of months since my last bump on it, so consider this that, though also keep up the good work elsewhere!)
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: michih on October 17, 2019, 06:55:01 am
Relax...

(I know I'm picking out one person here, and let it be known that I understand, even if I'm a little impatient to see the cannl system I drafted finally get activated! I guess it's been a couple of months since my last bump on it, so consider this that, though also keep up the good work elsewhere!)

Sure but have you answered questions like "What's the source for this name?"
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: si404 on October 17, 2019, 09:01:43 am
Relax...
I'm relaxed. The problem is that the people demanding we do stuff don't seem to be - hence why they keep reiterating the same demands.

I know I can just ignore them, but I want to both reassure them that we are doing what they say that they would like us to do, and also why we won't do what they are actually saying they want us to do.
Quote
Sure but have you answered questions like "What's the source for this name?"
I missed the answer to my bumps has arrived. Will address.
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: kjslaughter on October 17, 2019, 09:44:16 am
I suck at quoting prior lines in forums, so...

To be clear, I was just saying within North America to finish one thing before starting another.  I don't travel to Europe much myself, but I understand this is an international site.

As another user said, thanks to all of you guys!  I wish there was more I could do to help and try not to complain about work on a volunteer unpaid project.  :-)  The road geek in me is just happy to have a place to log my travels and it adds a new element to my travels to try to clinch roads.

I have lived in Georgia most of my life, so if there is anything I can do to help validate routes in Georgia and adjacent states, I'm happy to do so.  I'm just unsure of the need and what I can do.  If you guys need any sort of donations to help keep servers running too, let me know.
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: michih on October 17, 2019, 12:17:52 pm
Sure but have you answered questions like "What's the source for this name?"
I missed the answer to my bumps has arrived. Will address.

I also missed it :) I just wanted to know today when you've bumped it last time. And realized that something has happened meanwhile ;)
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: Jim on February 07, 2021, 11:00:49 pm
Resurrecting this thread as a place to talk about how we might support subsets of TM for users who are not interested in certain systems/regions/etc.  It's come up again in the context of unsigned interstates and others.

Here are a few thoughts from my point of view, thinking of both the data and the web front end.

I don't see how this can be user-based in the sense that user joecool can say that anyone who visits TM and sees my name and stats and maps should only see those based on this subset of TM that I'm interested in.  When joecool wants to see his stats and maps restricted to those in his subset of regions/systems of interest, he would have to set those preferences in his browser.  Anyone would be able to see everyone's overall stats and maps or restricted any way he or she likes.  I think this would satisfy most.

I see this as being totally flexible, restricting things to any combination of systems and regions that you wish.  It might not be simple to select a completely arbitrary subset, but I would want it to be possible.  That said, I expect there would be a fairly small subset of common restrictions (e.g., North America only, everything except usaif, national-level systems only, etc).

There's a lot to think about and implement here.

Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: Jim on February 07, 2021, 11:11:38 pm
Relevant: https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/351
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: Jim on February 09, 2021, 05:33:56 pm
One thing that's come up in other threads related to this idea is a signed/unsigned flag in the route list for a given system.  I think I'd prefer signed and unsigned to end up in different systems, but I could be convinced otherwise.  One complication of splitting into separate systems is that we could not define a partially-signed route to have a single connected route.  However, if a goal is to allow someone to turn on and off all unsigned routes, having them together in a single connected route would be problematic anyway.
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: yakra on February 09, 2021, 05:35:38 pm
Maybe just ignore that distinction when looking at connected routes?
Not even saying this idea is necessarily a good one; it's just the first thing that comes to mind
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: Jim on February 11, 2021, 08:14:50 am
- There should be enough information in the DB as currently designed and populated to do much if not all of what we want, at least from the point of view of someone looking at the web front end.  Log files generated by the site update process would continue to show stats for all systems for all users.

- The implementation challenges seem to break down into a few categories:

1. How to specify which systems/regions/countries/continents/tiers/etc. should be included and excluded for a given page load.  This would likely be part of the long-planned control panel page (https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/351). As stated before, I would want to implement this to be completely flexible.  If someone wants all of Europe, only Future interstates and the Nebraska Links and Spurs, and nothing else, they should be able to do that.
2. How to remember that information.
  a. My thought is that it would most likely would be done in a browser cookie or cookies.
  b. I'd like to allow people to save those to these settings to their computer in a config file that could be reloaded if cookies are cleared, loaded into other browsers, shared with other users, etc.
  c. Maybe those config files could be stored in GitHub as a way to select among subsets people have put together based on their own interests.
3. Updating all of the affected SQL queries to limit them to the desired subset of highway data.  A quick count shows 77 tmdb_query calls in TM's php code, and a significant fraction of them will be affected.  It will take some planning to come up with a way to update them all in a consistent and coherent way, and to make sure whatever changes are made to the queries are not only correct, but that the queries do not become significantly slower.

- I think this functionality needs to be in place before any new unsigned systems being discussed in other threads would progress past devel status.  With a compressed semester starting up soon, I am unlikely to work on it before June.  That said, I am very interested in getting this functionality in place and will work on it sooner if time permits.

Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: yakra on February 11, 2021, 11:28:11 am
...and allowing users to "opt out" and not track systems they don't care about.

There's infrastructure for this in place, but our current userpages don't get us all the way there. On region.php & system.php, the maps look OK whether we filter for any combination of 1 or more systems in 1 or more regions. A happy side effect of the way the site works under the hood. The tables are more limited and less customizable though -- region.php always shows all the systems in one region; system.php will filter for any number of regions, but only one system.

Even without a control panel page, I think this would get us most of what we want. If we keep the regions & systems we filter in/out persistent in the URL, we can share URLs on another forum, and someone else can click & open up the same page we're looking at ourselves.

Of course, having a good UI to get there will make the page more usable, but first, there's gotta be something for that UI to direct to, eh?
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: Duke87 on February 13, 2021, 01:09:17 am
This post from the unsigned interstates thread makes me think of something:
I'm not sure that a toggle that would only affect my view would be satisfying... kinda like cleaning up by sweeping the dust under the rug.  Especially as I do link to my page from my website, and because I don't feel like "signing in" to view my page.

The basic stated issue here is that if a user does not care for unsigned highways and has not logged any, simply switching them off on their end will not help when they are sending others a link to their page.

How's this for a suggestion: can we support certain exclusion criteria in the URL? For example maybe if someone appends "&includeunsigned=n" this would resolve the issue of allowing users to share links that will display things as they prefer.
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: yakra on February 13, 2021, 09:18:39 am
simply switching them off on their end will not help when they are sending others a link to their page.
... How's this for a suggestion: can we support certain exclusion criteria in the URL?
keep the regions & systems we filter in/out persistent in the URL, we can share URLs on another forum
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: Jim on February 13, 2021, 09:41:58 am
I think a QS parameter to set the subset would make sense and that QS parameter could be included when sharing links, etc.  However, the implementation paths going forward that I have in mind would not restrict someone coming to TM and viewing user X's stats and maps from setting whatever subset they want. 
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: yakra on February 13, 2021, 10:31:47 am
"they" meaning the "someone coming to TM", I presume?
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: Jim on February 13, 2021, 10:34:54 am
"they" meaning the "someone coming to TM", I presume?

Yes, as I envision it, anyone browsing the site could view anyone's stats and maps with any subset of data they wish.
Title: Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
Post by: vdeane on February 13, 2021, 04:12:54 pm
I suppose a question is, how useful is it to view another person's page with systems they are not tracking?  Presumably they wouldn't be marking travels on them, so any stats including them wouldn't necessarily be representative of their travels regardless.  It's not like people are installing GPS devices in their car to log whenever they clinch something.  All the data is self-reported.  We already have this now - there are people who only track certain things (I know of at least one person who didn't track state highways for the longest time, and the only state routes that showed up on his page were those that overlapped with interstates and maybe US routes), and people who haven't updated their page since more systems have been added.

Perhaps a compromise, one that allows the site to avoid user account hassle?
-Users could define in their .list file or in a configuration file the "default" configuration for their page.  This would be used for any visitor who doesn't have their own configuration set or flagged in the URL for external links.
-Users could open a control panel letting them configure things like colors, included/excluded systems, etc. and these settings would be saved in a cookie and would override both site-wide and user defaults.  They could be site for site-wide browsing, for browsing a given user's page, for the current session, or as a default whenever they come back to the site.
-There would also be buttons for reverting both to a user's defaults and the website defaults.
-Users could export configurations to a text file that could then be imported at any time, either for a pre-set view or because something happened to the cookie.

I'm not sure how compatible the rank statistic is with this, but maybe it's not needed?  I think there was someone lamenting the view of the site as a competition in one of the threads.