Web Design Discussion > General Web Design Discussion
Non-connected related routes - definition discussion
oscar:
Not sure if this is relevant to this particular "related routes" discussion, but the "related routes" feature still in the HB helps users find routes that are somehow connected to the one displayed in the HB, one of which the user might've wanted to display from the outset. For example, a user who likes me puts in the URL what is expected to be the right route file, but actually isn't (for example, r=qc.qc138, which takes you to the longest segment rather than the one in Montreal). Hitting "related routes" will guide the user to the right file.
That use of the "related routes" feature seems to work fine for that purpose, but not for other purposes.
yakra:
--- Quote from: Jim on June 21, 2020, 08:26:38 am ---We had discussion elsewhere about the flaws of rte=, but my quick summary:
• It relates routes that aren't related, like the unrelated routes worldwide that have names like "A4",
--- End quote ---
Restricting mapview's parameters by system and/or region can get us around this, as done in the stopgap fix for system.php mapview links.
--- Quote from: Jim on June 21, 2020, 08:26:38 am ---• It fails to relate routes that should be related, like the I-35E/W pairs, and 3dis
--- End quote ---
The old mapview (still running on lab2) with its regex-based rte= functionality handled I-35 E/W. Not 3DIs of course.
--- Quote from: Jim on June 21, 2020, 08:26:38 am ---the unrelated U.S. Interstates I-84, I-86, I-87, and I-88
--- End quote ---
These would still be displayed in either case.
This whole topic strikes me as a solution in search of a problem; an effort to box users into one particular way (just what particular way TBD?) of thinking about these routes, one that might not be appropriate or relevant to all users. This thread itself is evidence there are different ways of thinking about it. We have michih's examples upthread, and Jim & si404's counterpoints to these same examples. We have same-numbered, similarly-numbered, bannered/child routes, 3DIs etc., and probably as many opinions on what should & shouldn't count as "related".
IMO this whole idea should just be left alone.
michih:
--- Quote from: yakra on June 21, 2020, 10:53:34 pm ---This whole topic strikes me as a solution in search of a problem
--- End quote ---
Disagree!
yakra:
But it does strike me as a solution is search of a problem! ;)
HA! Don't mind me, I'm just being pedantic in my use of language for the sake of a laugh. :)
Seriously though, I stand by my statement in my last post -- there are different criteria for what may or may not be "related", and these criteria will be interpreted differently by different users. (For example, should 3-digit Interstates be considered "related" to their parent Interstates?) We're practically bound to not reach consensus on these questions. Boxing users unto a particular way of thinking about related routes would IMO be a disservice to the community at large.
@michih, IIUC it sounds like, the way you envision related routes as described upthread, they're routes with the same designation, the same Route+Banner combo. Clinch I-76 west & I-76 east to clinch I-76, etc.
To search & display routes in this regard, we wouldn't need to change anything about how info is stored in the DB. We'd just need to tweak mapview to filter by banner...
si404:
--- Quote from: oscar on June 21, 2020, 07:59:30 pm ---Not sure if this is relevant to this particular "related routes" discussion, but the "related routes" feature still in the HB helps users find routes that are somehow connected to the one displayed in the HB, one of which the user might've wanted to display from the outset. For example, a user who likes me puts in the URL what is expected to be the right route file, but actually isn't (for example, r=qc.qc138, which takes you to the longest segment rather than the one in Montreal). Hitting "related routes" will guide the user to the right file.
--- End quote ---
Yes, this is why the feature is useful and should continue to be provided - the issue is the unrelated routes dragged in (and the related routes excluded by a filter).
--- Quote from: yakra on June 21, 2020, 10:53:34 pm ---
--- Quote from: Jim on June 21, 2020, 08:26:38 am ---the unrelated U.S. Interstates I-84, I-86, I-87, and I-88
--- End quote ---
These would still be displayed in either case.
--- End quote ---
Jim's point is that they shouldn't be!
--- Quote ---IMO this whole idea should just be left alone.
--- End quote ---
And then we don't get the feature back as we don't come up with a consensus of what it's there for...
And here's what I think of the filtering by system:
--- Quote from: si404 on July 02, 2020, 09:56:13 am ---
--- Quote from: yakra on July 02, 2020, 03:22:11 am ---The way around that would have been to put a sys= filter into the link, as was temporarily done in the links from system.php:
https://travelmapping.net/user/mapview.php?rte=A1&sys=deua
...But we never did that for the Related Routes links, and now, for better or worse, the feature is gone.
--- End quote ---
That doesn't deal with:
1) bannered routes being related routes - a system filter is too narrow.
2) Jim's main gripe that duplicate numbers (eg I-88) are not related routes - a system filter is too broad.
It's a misdiagnose of the problem to just whack a system filter on it. Hence my thread to try and get a consensus on what the feature is there for in order to get it restored in a productive way.
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version