Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: Northern Ireland B Roads (nirb)
« Last post by michih on Today at 02:28:11 am »
Sorry, I didn't expect that the bridge in Derry has two levels. Fine.

I only found the missing B8 change because I had a quick look at HDX. I've not checked more.
2
When there are newsworthy changes to routes of active system, we always add an Update entry.
With the latest modifications to HDX, our highway data managers are now able to check if anyone has traveled the relevant region around the change. If there is no traveler, do we need the update entry nonetheless?

I've sometimes not added entries, e.g. moving B51 onto the new Belm bypass in Lower Saxony, where I was the only traveler on the old route.

...

Should we always add all newsworthy entries or can we omit them when no one traveled there?

I've made Updates entries for changes I've made when I'm the only known traveler, for example the recent removal of ak.ak010chi
3
I'd consider the GitHub history more of a "power user" option though. It can take a bit of digging to find out what happened, when and how.
4
I'd say use your judgement.  Earlier in the project, we still had a good number of CHM people finding us, and it was good to have the info there for their benefit.  It's nice to have the info recorded when significant, but keep in mind we have the GitHub history as well.
5
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: Northern Ireland B Roads (nirb)
« Last post by si404 on Yesterday at 06:50:20 pm »
A5 doesn't miss the A40 point. A2 does as it passes over with no junction. The two routes are not concurrent.

B8 I must have missed it.

Thanks for the concurrency shout out. Will fix.
6
I agree with yakra on this.
7
Yvelines is completed and I've started with Seine-Saint-Denis (departement 93) now.


N410 was downgraded to D941 in 2006. The remaining segment starts at D24 and ends at A1, see wikisara. D941 is indicated on OSM and it's confirmed by the official map. Signs do still show N410 (2018 GSV). However, there are more former N routes in Paris region which are still signed. Since we draft D routes now, I'd like to truncate N410.

Edit: Same for N301, only the ramp to A1 is still N route, rest is D901, see wikisara.

Any objections?

@Si: If nobody has objections, do you wanna deal with N410 truncation or should I do it?
8
I think it's good to have the historical info available for major changes like a relocation, extension, or truncation.

If it's just a waypoint being renamed due to a relocation, I'll only include an entry if the affected waypoint label is in use.
9
When there are newsworthy changes to routes of active system, we always add an Update entry.
With the latest modifications to HDX, our highway data managers are now able to check if anyone has traveled the relevant region around the change. If there is no traveler, do we need the update entry nonetheless?

I've sometimes not added entries, e.g. moving B51 onto the new Belm bypass in Lower Saxony, where I was the only traveler on the old route.
@panda80 has recently omitted an update entry for DN56C truncation in Romania for the same reason. He has added it meanwhile though.

Should we always add all newsworthy entries or can we omit them when no one traveled there?
10
General Web Design Discussion / Re: stat tables in untraveled regions & systems
« Last post by yakra on Yesterday at 12:15:03 pm »
region.php

Why total mileage is listed as 0:
$activeTotalMileage = $row['totalActiveMileage'];
when
$row = tm_fetch_user_row_with_rank($activeClinchedRes, 'activeClinched');
when there is no actual user row to fetch in $activeClinchedRes.
Using a separate query to get total mileage before the main query that gets our results, similar to what's done elsewhere on the site, should clear this up.

Why Distance Traveled Rank is n out of n travelers:
In tm_fetch_user_row_with_rank, the while loop is executed 8 times, once for each traveler. $rank is set to $nextRank for values of 1 to 8 inclusive.

Why Routes Traveled/Clinched Rank is n+1 out of n travelers:
If I query
SELECT traveler, SUM(cr.clinched) AS clinched, ROUND(sum(cr.clinched) / 112 * 100, 2) as clinchedPct FROM routes AS r LEFT JOIN clinchedRoutes AS cr ON cr.route = r.root LEFT JOIN systems ON r.systemName = systems.systemName WHERE (r.region = 'ESP-CT' AND systems.level = 'active') GROUP BY traveler ORDER BY clinched DESC;
I get an extra 9th row in my results where all fields are NULL, allowing for one more iteration of the while loop in tm_fetch_user_row_with_rank.
Changing the first LEFT JOIN to a RIGHT JOIN eliminates this extra row. (Do we want to do this?)
Technically, I am in a 238-way tie for 9th place here, along with everyone else traveling 0 routes. Do we prefer to present this information that way, or as N/A as suggested in the OP?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10