Author Topic: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest  (Read 678 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jim

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Last Login:Today at 10:09:12 pm
Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
« Reply #15 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

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2245
  • Last Login:October 18, 2019, 03:13:53 pm
Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
« Reply #16 on: October 06, 2019, 12:01:54 pm »

Offline US 89

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Last Login:Today at 11:46:51 am
Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
« Reply #17 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.

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 274
  • Last Login:Today at 07:00:10 pm
Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
« Reply #18 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.

Offline Bickendan

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 300
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 03:34:50 am
Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
« Reply #19 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  ;)

Offline Highway63

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 244
  • Last Login:October 15, 2019, 03:39:11 pm
Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
« Reply #20 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.

Offline Highway63

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 244
  • Last Login:October 15, 2019, 03:39:11 pm
Re: Overall Stats Ranking
« Reply #21 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.

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2245
  • Last Login:October 18, 2019, 03:13:53 pm
Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
« Reply #22 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, as this seems more of a "stats restricted by country" thing.

Offline kjslaughter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 12:06:52 pm
Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
« Reply #23 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.

Offline bejacob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
  • Last Login:Today at 08:50:05 pm
Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
« Reply #24 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.

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Last Login:Today at 05:37:14 pm
Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
« Reply #25 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.

Offline bejacob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
  • Last Login:Today at 08:50:05 pm
Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
« Reply #26 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.

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Last Login:Today at 05:37:14 pm
Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
« Reply #27 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!)

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1808
  • Last Login:Today at 02:44:17 pm
Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
« Reply #28 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?"

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Last Login:Today at 05:37:14 pm
Re: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest
« Reply #29 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.