Web Design Discussion > General Web Design Discussion
Highway Browser Design
Jim:
Our current Highway Browser code is a bit of a mess. The same php code is used to generate the list of systems, list of routes within a system, and the actual map of a route. I'd like to streamline this code to make it easier to search for a route, and to separate out the map code from the clunky waypoints.js.php that was thrown together quickly based on how CHM worked (note it's still the "Draft" HB) when TM was rising from the ashes of CHM.
Looking at some discussions here on the forum and in GitHub Issues, it looks like there are a number of things we'd like to see work differently with the HB. Some have to do with finding continuing and adjacent routes, others have to do with automatically generating list file entries, I'm sure there are many others.
With the new support of 6-field list file entries, does it make more sense to have the HB, by default, deal with connected routes?
So I open this thread as a place to start gathering ideas. I don't promise I'll be able to get to a new HB soon, but I hope I can. This is working toward some new HDX algorithm visualization functionality that's of higher priority for me, but all I'm learning in the development of the Scrollable Mapview and top stats pages, and possibly in a new and improved HB, would help me toward that goal.
si404:
I think connected route browsing as default needs to be tied to automatic list entry generation. But then that could be me not being familiar with the new 6-field .list file entries.
If browsing by region, you are going to want to get chopped routes. Connected routes make no sense as you browse say, MA, and click I-90 and suddenly are presented with a route that spans to the Pacific - that's not helpful if mapping Massachusetts travels!
But browsing by system, then connected routes makes sense - at least as an end game.
michih:
--- Quote from: michih on June 02, 2020, 11:12:41 am ---Why do we still need region-segments at all and don't go with "connected routes" as "routes" per default? with the 6-field user list file option? the old style is still supported and would still work. The UI would need this feature only: https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/421#issuecomment-636612618
I prefer doing ONE well-thought-out change instead of multiple minor steps with much more effort on coding and for users getting familar with.....
I don't talk about wpt files and our maintenance by regions but what we present on the UI.
--- End quote ---
michih:
Idea of how to browse routes/waypoints (from 2017)
yakra:
--- Quote from: si404 on June 02, 2020, 06:58:43 am ---I think connected route browsing as default needs to be tied to automatic list entry generation. But then that could be me not being familiar with the new 6-field .list file entries.
If browsing by region, you are going to want to get chopped routes. Connected routes make no sense as you browse say, MA, and click I-90 and suddenly are presented with a route that spans to the Pacific - that's not helpful if mapping Massachusetts travels!
But browsing by system, then connected routes makes sense - at least as an end game.
--- End quote ---
This.
Edit: Bolded the bits I agree with.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version