Author Topic: Including map views in highway data updates entries  (Read 2910 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Last Login:Today at 03:24:20 pm
Re: Including map views in highway data updates entries
« Reply #15 on: December 24, 2016, 03:16:27 am »
I wanna bring this topic up because we currently have a discussion where images might help: http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=1800.msg4757#msg4757.

My first thought about "showing realignments before/after" on a map was positive because I also had similar problems to understand or to describe changes.

However, I have no simple solution in my mind which could work easily. We would need rules about file format (file size vs. quality, e.g. bmp/jpg/png/tif...), screen resolution, map style, manual highlighting etc. but I think it's hard that every contributor makes screen shots showing the old and the new alignment with the same quality, same look and feel.

For instance, I don't know how this situation should be shown with a screen shot. This situation must be described with words.

If the description is not clear, the actual solution is asking on the forum. This might work but it's painful for everyone.

I discovered a GitHub feature yesterday. It's not a new feature but I needed it for the first time yesterday (new NLD A12 exit 10 already existed at a location w/o i/c). You can see what has changed in the wpt file. If you wanna see the old wpts on a map, you can load the corresponding lines to the wp editor, zoom in/out and discover the change on maps etc. But searching the related data on GitHub is not the way how user should figure this out.

We could add one or more "Modification detail" column(s) to updates.csv:

Shows all modifications to the file: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/commits/master/hwy_data/NC/usaus/nc.us501.wpt (not required)
Shows the relevant modification to the file: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/commit/9d58607f01f1801e0ecd3c0870c45a941a3e023a#diff-e2483097ebfea9179276b2981736684e (red/green what has been changed)
Shows the old version of the file: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/blob/0ff7029283fcc1acc2db1fc402bd19b27b34bb85/hwy_data/NC/usaus/nc.us501.wpt (to be loaded to wpt editor)

I think it's not a perfect solution but better than screen shots...


Thoughts? Other ideas?

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2147
  • Last Login:Today at 06:31:30 pm
Re: Including map views in highway data updates entries
« Reply #16 on: December 24, 2016, 01:10:54 pm »
bits crossposted: http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=1800.msg4763#msg4763

Feeping creaturism.

"Shows the relevant modification to the file" -- unintuitive, as it will often be hidden amongst a bunch of other files changed in the same commit. (Unless we mandate that each commit change only one file, an idea I dislike.)

"Shows all modifications to the file" -- The user will have to find the correct commit to look at the DIFF. Often apparent if the user knows the date the change was made, but sometimes not.

"Shows the old version of the file" -- Either this would require some very clever coding from Jim (or whoever was tasked with implementing it.), or the collaborator making note of the update changes would have to find the SHA for the old version of the file. Some of us aren't that well versed in GitHub, and still submit updates the old-fashioned way, by emailing to Jim or another contributor. Either that's more work that's potentially outside the expertise of a particular contributor, or more work for Jim or whoever.
I think looking at GitHub (and loading stuff into WPTedit) is by its nature more suited to the Power Users -- and those who have the inclination and the know-how can find the appropriate part of GitHub on their own... via "TM on GitHub", their own Browser History, or however. Putting the task of finding the link to a relevant commit on the data contributors, IMO, just adds more busy-work, complication, (and further chances for things to go wrong), for too little gain.

If our pursuit of perfection becomes too relentless, it will soon become a headache of its own.

Quote
If the description is not clear, the actual solution is asking on the forum. This might work but it's painful for everyone.
Or referring to GitHub, as you mentioned, though that's not for everyone. For casual users, yes, asking on the forum is probably the way to go if things are unclear. I think think there's much of a practical way to avoid the process being painful at some point , somewhere. So let it be painful. We just gotta find a way to make the least amount of pain the most tolerable.

--

I think the old CHM conventions, the "mad-libs" of how to phrase updates wording, are overall a very good benchmark to strive for.
They can be found at the bottom of this page (search for "Newsworthy news entries").

A couple excerpts:
Quote
Relocated route (in middle of route):
Pennsylvania US 220: Removed from Main Street and 5th Avenue, and relocated onto a new northern Georgetown bypass, between US 23 and PA 70.
(mentions both ends of the new part, that is, the intersections/places where the old and new alignments meet) and both the old and new routes

Quote
Don't refer to "the new route" or "the new end". Instead, say what the new route is.

Sure, even I'll admit that writing these out can get tedious at times. But proper, descriptive wording in the updates entries can go a long way toward establishing clarify.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2016, 01:43:44 pm by yakra »

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Last Login:Today at 03:24:20 pm
Re: Including map views in highway data updates entries
« Reply #17 on: December 25, 2016, 03:22:46 am »
Ok, another idea :)

nc.us501.wpt (actual file; with line index):
Code: [Select]
...
71 CouSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=36.395085&lon=-78.986270
72 MainSt +NC49 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=36.409756&lon=-78.972183
73 NC49_N http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=36.414390&lon=-78.954502
74 BosRd +HalRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=36.452073&lon=-78.926087
75 NC/VA http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=36.541881&lon=-78.901609

nc.us501.001.wpt (new file containing the segment in question plus the unchanged waypoints in front and after; with line index):
Code: [Select]
1 CouSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=36.395085&lon=-78.986270
2 NC49 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=36.409756&lon=-78.972183
3 WooRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=36.443292&lon=-78.958536
4 HalRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=36.452073&lon=-78.926087
5 NC/VA http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=36.541881&lon=-78.901609


Updates.csv entry gets a new optional column:

2016-11-14;(USA) North Carolina;US 501;nc.us501;rerouted to new construction north of Roxboro
-->
2016-11-14;(USA) North Carolina;US 501;nc.us501;rerouted to new construction north of Roxboro;nc.us501.001



Updates.php shows it on the site like today:

2016-11-14   (USA) North Carolina   US 501   nc.us501   rerouted to new construction north of Roxboro

It's still the same but opening the HB via updates.php could load nc.us501.wpt and nc.us501.001.wpt. The graph of latter should be displayed in a different color. A 2nd table (or just additional columns in the existing table) could be displayed on the left containing the old waypoints from nc.us501.001. They can directly be positioned in the correct line because nc.us501.001.wpt contains the unchanged waypoints in front and after

Code: [Select]
(36.395085,-78.98627) CouSt 27.27
(36.409756,-78.972183) MainSt 24.24 (36.409756,-78.972183) NC49
(36.41439,-78.954502) NC49_N 21.21 (36.443292,-78.958536) WooRd
(36.452073,-78.926087) BosRd 22.73 (36.452073,-78.926087) HalRd
(36.541881,-78.901609) NC/VA

If there are more or less waypoints now, there could be a gap, e.g. if NC49_N had not exist:

Code: [Select]
(36.395085,-78.98627) CouSt 27.27
(36.409756,-78.972183) MainSt 24.24 (36.409756,-78.972183) NC49
(36.452073,-78.926087) BosRd 22.73 (36.443292,-78.958536) WooRd
(36.452073,-78.926087) HalRd
(36.541881,-78.901609) NC/VA


The user could directly figure out what has been changed and how to change its user list file.

6 graph colors are required (1-3 already exist):

blue: no user selected, actual route
grey: user selected, segment of actual route not traveled
pink: user selected, segment of actual traveled

brown: no user selected, old route
white: user selected, segment of old route not traveled
red: user selected, segment of old traveled




btw: The current updates.csv entry of the NC change is really "bad" and not according to CHM conventions:

Code: [Select]
2016-11-14;(USA) North Carolina;US 501;nc.us501;rerouted to new construction north of Roxboro
Quote
Don't use vague phrases like "the correct location", "onto new construction". Instead, say what the location or highway is.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2016, 03:26:19 am by michih »

Offline compdude787

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 187
  • Last Login:September 16, 2019, 01:48:03 am
Re: Including map views in highway data updates entries
« Reply #18 on: January 06, 2017, 04:01:27 am »
Kind of tempted to write this off as too much of a pain in the botty to pursue.

Yeah, I agree; this does seem like way too much work for us all.