Travel Mapping
User Discussions => Other Discussion => Topic started by: Highway63 on September 30, 2019, 01:39:00 am
-
Would there be a way to include the Lincoln Highway in some form? I have a file all ready to go for Iowa, and Illinois is a case of cobbling together segments of existing routes with fine-tuning. It might have to be coded like IA 800 or something, although it shouldn't be counted in a state-route-mileage total. (Nebraska simply slapped the LH on top of existing 30 so it wouldn't be of benefit.)
-
I am against the inclusion of any National Scenic Byways until we are able to implement a site feature that allows users to switch off systems they are not interested in tracking their travels on so they don't show up on maps or in stats.
Once we've got such a feature, go ahead and make systems for anything anyone is willing to draft. But we really should have such a feature before we go cluttering up maps and stats with systems only some people care about (I'd argue usaush and usanp also fall into this category, but those horses have left the barn...)
-
I am against the inclusion of any National Scenic Byways until we are able to implement a site feature that allows users to switch off systems they are not interested in tracking their travels on so they don't show up on maps or in stats.
Once we've got such a feature, go ahead and make systems for anything anyone is willing to draft. But we really should have such a feature before we go cluttering up maps and stats with systems only some people care about (I'd argue usaush and usanp also fall into this category, but those horses have left the barn...)
Agreed. Heck, the only reason I got involved in clinching things that aren't interstates is because Tim started drafting US/state routes and added multiplex detection, screwing with my maps/stats. We seem to be getting involved with more and more niche systems, so some means of dealing with what people do/don't want to worry about is only going to get more important. I can't possibly be the only person who clinches things just to make the map look good or to get certain region/system combos to 100%.
-
I actually agree with having a toggle for systems to track.
-
you can do it manually (so you have to do it every time), and only by addition, not subtraction, already.
But something to make it easier would be good!
Anyway, this aside aside...
-
Regarding the ability to restrict to systems/regions/etc of interest:
https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/360
-
Topic split from usaush (United States Historic US Routes) (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=97.msg15694#msg15694)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ;)
-
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.
-
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 (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2977), as this seems more of a "stats restricted by country" thing.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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!)
-
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?"
-
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.
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.
-
I suck at quoting prior lines in forums, so...
To be clear, I was just saying within North America to finish one thing before starting another. I don't travel to Europe much myself, but I understand this is an international site.
As another user said, thanks to all of you guys! I wish there was more I could do to help and try not to complain about work on a volunteer unpaid project. :-) The road geek in me is just happy to have a place to log my travels and it adds a new element to my travels to try to clinch roads.
I have lived in Georgia most of my life, so if there is anything I can do to help validate routes in Georgia and adjacent states, I'm happy to do so. I'm just unsure of the need and what I can do. If you guys need any sort of donations to help keep servers running too, let me know.
-
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.
I also missed it :) I just wanted to know today when you've bumped it last time. And realized that something has happened meanwhile ;)
-
Resurrecting this thread as a place to talk about how we might support subsets of TM for users who are not interested in certain systems/regions/etc. It's come up again in the context of unsigned interstates and others.
Here are a few thoughts from my point of view, thinking of both the data and the web front end.
I don't see how this can be user-based in the sense that user joecool can say that anyone who visits TM and sees my name and stats and maps should only see those based on this subset of TM that I'm interested in. When joecool wants to see his stats and maps restricted to those in his subset of regions/systems of interest, he would have to set those preferences in his browser. Anyone would be able to see everyone's overall stats and maps or restricted any way he or she likes. I think this would satisfy most.
I see this as being totally flexible, restricting things to any combination of systems and regions that you wish. It might not be simple to select a completely arbitrary subset, but I would want it to be possible. That said, I expect there would be a fairly small subset of common restrictions (e.g., North America only, everything except usaif, national-level systems only, etc).
There's a lot to think about and implement here.
-
Relevant: https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/351
-
One thing that's come up in other threads related to this idea is a signed/unsigned flag in the route list for a given system. I think I'd prefer signed and unsigned to end up in different systems, but I could be convinced otherwise. One complication of splitting into separate systems is that we could not define a partially-signed route to have a single connected route. However, if a goal is to allow someone to turn on and off all unsigned routes, having them together in a single connected route would be problematic anyway.
-
Maybe just ignore that distinction when looking at connected routes?
Not even saying this idea is necessarily a good one; it's just the first thing that comes to mind
-
- There should be enough information in the DB as currently designed and populated to do much if not all of what we want, at least from the point of view of someone looking at the web front end. Log files generated by the site update process would continue to show stats for all systems for all users.
- The implementation challenges seem to break down into a few categories:
1. How to specify which systems/regions/countries/continents/tiers/etc. should be included and excluded for a given page load. This would likely be part of the long-planned control panel page (https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/351). As stated before, I would want to implement this to be completely flexible. If someone wants all of Europe, only Future interstates and the Nebraska Links and Spurs, and nothing else, they should be able to do that.
2. How to remember that information.
a. My thought is that it would most likely would be done in a browser cookie or cookies.
b. I'd like to allow people to save those to these settings to their computer in a config file that could be reloaded if cookies are cleared, loaded into other browsers, shared with other users, etc.
c. Maybe those config files could be stored in GitHub as a way to select among subsets people have put together based on their own interests.
3. Updating all of the affected SQL queries to limit them to the desired subset of highway data. A quick count shows 77 tmdb_query calls in TM's php code, and a significant fraction of them will be affected. It will take some planning to come up with a way to update them all in a consistent and coherent way, and to make sure whatever changes are made to the queries are not only correct, but that the queries do not become significantly slower.
- I think this functionality needs to be in place before any new unsigned systems being discussed in other threads would progress past devel status. With a compressed semester starting up soon, I am unlikely to work on it before June. That said, I am very interested in getting this functionality in place and will work on it sooner if time permits.
-
...and allowing users to "opt out" and not track systems they don't care about.
There's infrastructure for this in place, but our current userpages don't get us all the way there. On region.php & system.php, the maps look OK whether we filter for any combination of 1 or more systems in 1 or more regions. A happy side effect of the way the site works under the hood. The tables are more limited and less customizable though -- region.php always shows all the systems in one region; system.php will filter for any number of regions, but only one system.
Even without a control panel page, I think this would get us most of what we want. If we keep the regions & systems we filter in/out persistent in the URL, we can share URLs on another forum, and someone else can click & open up the same page we're looking at ourselves.
Of course, having a good UI to get there will make the page more usable, but first, there's gotta be something for that UI to direct to, eh?
-
This post from the unsigned interstates thread makes me think of something:
I'm not sure that a toggle that would only affect my view would be satisfying... kinda like cleaning up by sweeping the dust under the rug. Especially as I do link to my page from my website, and because I don't feel like "signing in" to view my page.
The basic stated issue here is that if a user does not care for unsigned highways and has not logged any, simply switching them off on their end will not help when they are sending others a link to their page.
How's this for a suggestion: can we support certain exclusion criteria in the URL? For example maybe if someone appends "&includeunsigned=n" this would resolve the issue of allowing users to share links that will display things as they prefer.
-
simply switching them off on their end will not help when they are sending others a link to their page.
... How's this for a suggestion: can we support certain exclusion criteria in the URL?
keep the regions & systems we filter in/out persistent in the URL, we can share URLs on another forum
-
I think a QS parameter to set the subset would make sense and that QS parameter could be included when sharing links, etc. However, the implementation paths going forward that I have in mind would not restrict someone coming to TM and viewing user X's stats and maps from setting whatever subset they want.
-
"they" meaning the "someone coming to TM", I presume?
-
"they" meaning the "someone coming to TM", I presume?
Yes, as I envision it, anyone browsing the site could view anyone's stats and maps with any subset of data they wish.
-
I suppose a question is, how useful is it to view another person's page with systems they are not tracking? Presumably they wouldn't be marking travels on them, so any stats including them wouldn't necessarily be representative of their travels regardless. It's not like people are installing GPS devices in their car to log whenever they clinch something. All the data is self-reported. We already have this now - there are people who only track certain things (I know of at least one person who didn't track state highways for the longest time, and the only state routes that showed up on his page were those that overlapped with interstates and maybe US routes), and people who haven't updated their page since more systems have been added.
Perhaps a compromise, one that allows the site to avoid user account hassle?
-Users could define in their .list file or in a configuration file the "default" configuration for their page. This would be used for any visitor who doesn't have their own configuration set or flagged in the URL for external links.
-Users could open a control panel letting them configure things like colors, included/excluded systems, etc. and these settings would be saved in a cookie and would override both site-wide and user defaults. They could be site for site-wide browsing, for browsing a given user's page, for the current session, or as a default whenever they come back to the site.
-There would also be buttons for reverting both to a user's defaults and the website defaults.
-Users could export configurations to a text file that could then be imported at any time, either for a pre-set view or because something happened to the cookie.
I'm not sure how compatible the rank statistic is with this, but maybe it's not needed? I think there was someone lamenting the view of the site as a competition in one of the threads.
-
An issue with some of the systems proposed/implemented on TM is that some people have no interest in clinching them and feel that they get in the way of their game of clinching all the routes they want to clinch in a region (normally Interstate, US, state and bannered variants thereof) and want a filtering system to remove them.
In order to filter these systems out simply, I propose a new categories for systems, alongside the existing active, preview and devel - 'bonus' (not-yet ready bonus systems would remain plain 'preview' or 'devel'). 'active' might want renaming 'regular' or something similar.
Bonus systems would be the freeway grab-bags, tourist routes, city routes, etc that are nice to have in the database, but aren't everyone's cup of tea. It would also allow the creation of grabbag-style systems that cover unsigned routes and/or major local/private roads that don't fit into the freeway grab bags (eg the entirety of the Sugarloaf Parkway could be in the database, etc) without having the statistics issue.
Stats, would - instead of 'active-only' and 'active & preview', would be 'active-only', 'active & bonus', and 'active, bonus & preview'. I imagine that would add quite a lot of time to the update process to create the 3rd set of statistics and this is the big problem I can see with my proposal.
Thoughts?
-
Putting it in web design though it's more a data/data processing proposal, because the Highway Data boards are too narrow - feel free to move if you think there's a better home for the discussion.
But there are web design issues- what colour would bonus systems be displayed as (some sort of light blue, or an orange, are two options I've thought of and think might work)
- would the table be too wide with three sets of statistics columns?
-
I like the general idea but fear that arguments will continue, as users debate which systems qualify as active. How well would this work for a user who, for example, wants to track named freeways but not historic highways? Would this be easier to code than the previous suggestion of providing users with the ability to select all sets of interest to them?
-
Would this be easier to code than the previous suggestion of providing users with the ability to select all sets of interest to them?
I'm definitely not a coder, but I reckon even I would be able to do it with the tools of copy-paste! As far as I can see, it wouldn't be adding anything new, just doing the same stuff an extra time.
The selection is much more complex as it's a whole new function. It also seems much more intensive as the server would have to calculate bespoke stats.
And, yes, there would be the issue of what's bonus and what's not - it's not a flexible solution that can be tailored to individual users. Someone wanting to track named freeways would look at active stats and then the stats for the bonus system (should those named freeways be in bonus systems*).
*usasf would likely be considered bonus, but would, say, usakyp?
-
And, yes, there would be the issue of what's bonus and what's not - it's not a flexible solution that can be tailored to individual users.
Yep, that's why the proposal has more disadvantages than advantages IMO. Solve a problem but open another one.
-
I prefer the more general solution we had been discussing earlier about supporting views of the maps/stats based on whatever subsets of systems that someone is interested in working with at any given time.
-
Yeah, I am with Jim on this one.
-
Fair enough, everybody.
I too prefer the general option for more control, but saw a possibility for something easier and quicker to implement and so wanted to see if it might be a solution we could make happen quickly.
-
I do share the concern that this shifts the arguments to what should count as a core system versus an extra or "bonus" one. There will, after all, be varying opinions on this.
However I do see one benefit to this method: it would allow users to still show clinches in their stats of systems they aren't interested in finishing, but have nonetheless driven some of.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to borrow a concept here and, while still developing a user toggle, showing toggled off systems in a separate column on stats tables rather than hiding them outright.
So you'd have three columns: "active", "active + preview", and "disabled". With everything the user has placed in the third category shown there and excluded from the other two columns.
-
If we were to go down the path of one or more new "level" values to augment our current "active", "preview", and "devel", we could consider breaking down by what are verified as complete and well-defined systems, the more "grab bag" systems, and maybe other kinds of categories. I am still not thinking it's the way to go, but just thinking about something other than the name "bonus".
-
The easiest way would probably be to define disabled systems in the .list file and then compute two sets of stats for users with disabled systems, one with them not included and one normal with some new table entries for it. Maps are a more interesting question. I could see a checkbox for whether to show disabled routes (if I were disabling systems, I'd want them off the map), but that would probably be a bit more work to code.
Regarding making grab bag systems "bonus" or anything else, I don't think those necessarily work cleanly. Take usasf - it's easy to say Sugarloaf Parkway in GA should be bonus, but the New Jersey Turnpike is pretty integral to its state.
-
I know I've mentioned this before, but I think it's worth mentioning here while these issues are back at the forefront.
I don't envision any implementation of filtering by systems or categories of systems being based on information in .list files (i.e., chosen by the TM participant) but based on choices on the web front end (i.e., chosen by the TM website visitor). This makes more sense to me both from the likely ability to implement it, and for maximum flexibility. So if user X is only interested in some subset of systems, they can choose to restrict what they see on the site based on that, for all TM participants (defined as those who have submitted .list files). But when user Y comes along, they will see user X's stats and maps based on what Y's browser has defined as their subset of systems of interest. I worry that some might be hoping for "since I don't care about or track travels on unsigned dirt roads of Madagascar, those should always be excluded from every possible view of my stats".
-
I know I've mentioned this before, but I think it's worth mentioning here while these issues are back at the forefront.
I don't envision any implementation of filtering by systems or categories of systems being based on information in .list files (i.e., chosen by the TM participant) but based on choices on the web front end (i.e., chosen by the TM website visitor). This makes more sense to me both from the likely ability to implement it, and for maximum flexibility. So if user X is only interested in some subset of systems, they can choose to restrict what they see on the site based on that, for all TM participants (defined as those who have submitted .list files). But when user Y comes along, they will see user X's stats and maps based on what Y's browser has defined as their subset of systems of interest. I worry that some might be hoping for "since I don't care about or track travels on unsigned dirt roads of Madagascar, those should always be excluded from every possible view of my stats".
That's why I suggested two sets of stats; that way one could get the % with dirt roads included (though just because something isn't tracked doesn't mean they haven't been there, so that number wouldn't be gospel) if they wanted. I do wonder - how would stats work if excluded systems were determined by user settings and not .list files? My understanding is that they're currently processed during site updates and then stored in the database. Maps would be easier on that front since they're drawn on the fly.
There's also the question of whether users could link to their page with those settings set. I have mine linked from my website, for example. I imagine someone looking to share their maps/stats would probably want what others see to be similar to what they see.
-
A user toggle for each system could be the solution, so if I were only interested in TriMet and C-Tran lines of the Portland Metro Area, Hennepin and Ramsey County numbered county routes, Eurostar train lines, streets of Manhattan, and the AH/NH/WB network of West Bengal, India, I could toggle the flags for those specific systems and track those.
I wouldn't think this would cause much work to be done on the data side (aside from adding, validating, and maintaining such esoteric systems), if at all.
-
I agree in general that "it will cause someone to lose a 100% clinch" is not in and of itself a reason not to add something. But there are people who care about their 100% clinches, and it logically follows that if something is added that breaks one, they will feel obligated to go clinch it in order to get their 100% clinch back.
It isn't just vdeane either. I also care about my 100% clinches and would be lying if I said I wasn't relieved that usatr as it exists doesn't break any of them. Nonetheless, I already went through this problem with usanp. I had a 100% clinch of NJ that was broken by the addition of usanp routes in Delaware Water Gap NRA. You betcha I made a point of clinching those to get my 100% clinch back when I probably never would have otherwise. Fortunately this wasn't that big of a deal since they were routes that I regularly passed fairly near anyway so I didn't need to go that far out of my way for them. But, yes, the addition of something at the east end of Long Island would create a major headache for anyone who does not live in Long Island.
-
Can we make the Select systems a separate category in the stats, like we do with active vs active+preview? Preview will go away, eventually, and we could adjust the column titles to something like "Defined" and "Defined+Select". People who want to get 100% on official, government-defined systems could use the left column as their benchmark, and those who are more interested in maximizing their total driving mileage could use the right column. "Select" systems naturally will have more frequent changes, as those doing the selecting adjust their thinking on things they were on the fence about. Can't speak for Valerie or Anthony here, but personally, I find it somewhat easier to accept losing a 100% clinch due to a new state highway being built than I do due to an entirely new class of routes being added, especially when the criteria for inclusion is subjective.
Please understand, I have nothing against what Si did by creating this set (which people have desired for quite some time). It's conceptually valid and a welcome addition to the site. But the discussion of what else might eventually be added causes me some stress, mostly from the extra work I'll need to do with maintaining poorly-signed and unclearly-defined routes in my regions.
-
Relevant reminder: I do still intend to add functionality at some point where you can get maps and stats for only a subset of systems. I think it's a fairly major undertaking, breaking some fundamental assumptions in site update, in the DB, and in the web front end, so I won't be looking in detail until I'm confident I can block out a sufficient chunk of time to design and implement it properly. What mapcat suggests about replacing preview with something for the catch-all, less well-defined systems, could work but what I have in mind would be much more flexible.
-
It's a hidden point on NatRd, so concurrency detection will still work. This is because there's no intersection there, that section of MD 144 ends at the county line.
How does it function with the .list tool? I can imagine cases where someone might have the MD 144 part but not the rest if, say, they went to clinch MD 144 and then turned around.
I agree in general that "it will cause someone to lose a 100% clinch" is not in and of itself a reason not to add something. But there are people who care about their 100% clinches, and it logically follows that if something is added that breaks one, they will feel obligated to go clinch it in order to get their 100% clinch back.
It isn't just vdeane either. I also care about my 100% clinches and would be lying if I said I wasn't relieved that usatr as it exists doesn't break any of them. Nonetheless, I already went through this problem with usanp. I had a 100% clinch of NJ that was broken by the addition of usanp routes in Delaware Water Gap NRA. You betcha I made a point of clinching those to get my 100% clinch back when I probably never would have otherwise. Fortunately this wasn't that big of a deal since they were routes that I regularly passed fairly near anyway so I didn't need to go that far out of my way for them. But, yes, the addition of something at the east end of Long Island would create a major headache for anyone who does not live in Long Island.
Agreed, I'm largely just frustrated on that end. Especially after working so hard to get NY (and with me having plans to finally properly clinch the north end of US 11 in a few weeks, it's especially frustrating, as the goal posts seem to be moving right as I was finally about to reach them; the fact that I was stressing over the forecast when it first appeared and am still grieving not being able to see the eclipse does not help at all). And my mention of LI was indeed for that reason; other areas of NY, I can try to daytrip at some point (although the number of slots for a full 8 hour daytrip are limited, the number of remaining things that I would see outside of reclinches and stuff like this is diminishing, so it's less of a problem than it would have been a few years ago). Getting to the North Fork of Long Island realistically requires an overnight stay, in a part of a country where there isn't much else I'm interested in clinching that I don't already have. I actually enjoy Long Island, it's just that I have too many other places to go to find time without feeling like I'm "wasting" a trip on nearly nothing.
Can we make the Select systems a separate category in the stats, like we do with active vs active+preview? Preview will go away, eventually, and we could adjust the column titles to something like "Defined" and "Defined+Select". People who want to get 100% on official, government-defined systems could use the left column as their benchmark, and those who are more interested in maximizing their total driving mileage could use the right column. "Select" systems naturally will have more frequent changes, as those doing the selecting adjust their thinking on things they were on the fence about. Can't speak for Valerie or Anthony here, but personally, I find it somewhat easier to accept losing a 100% clinch due to a new state highway being built than I do due to an entirely new class of routes being added, especially when the criteria for inclusion is subjective.
Please understand, I have nothing against what Si did by creating this set (which people have desired for quite some time). It's conceptually valid and a welcome addition to the site. But the discussion of what else might eventually be added causes me some stress, mostly from the extra work I'll need to do with maintaining poorly-signed and unclearly-defined routes in my regions.
Yes, that's a good point. Construction happens (although not often in NY, so I might be overly used to things otherwise being stable). New systems or new things being added to "select" systems can feel like the goalposts shift and add frustration along the lines of "I could have easily clinched this when I was there clinching other things if I had known, now I need to go back to an area that's already well-traveled if I want everything". I've been trying to be more mindful of potential changes to what's in TM (not just things added to "select" systems but also points) in structuring my travels, but clearly it's still possible to be blindsided.
A few quick thoughts:
- I agree that the New York Scenic Byways, if added, would make sense as something like usanysb, not part of usatr since they don't span multiple regions.
- The routes being poorly-defined would be a good reason not to add them. They seem well signed in the places I've seen them, but I haven't been on all that many. But if we'd have to be hunting for signs in person or on street view, that's not great. The spurs don't sound fun, either.
- Causing people to lose 100% clinches in regions is not a good reason not to add something. People have many reasons to plot their travels in TM. Yes, some want to see 100% come up in the stats. Others (like me) are more interested in tracking where I've been, and the more routes that make sense to be included, the happier I am. The "I swear, if you make me drive all the way out to far eastern Long Island again" comment actually worries me. I hope no one feels obligated to go anywhere they don't want to go just because a route is added to or is updated in this project.
I actually have done this, although usually the examples are smaller (such as clinching a piece of Historic US 20 in NY when it was added before it was removed, or re-clinching NY 309 when the south end was adjusted and I couldn't remember whether I got the correct alignment or not; that trip also taught me that I really don't care about clinching reference routes aside from a few exceptions, and thankfully both were 2-3 hour semi-local trips, not 8+ hour long full daytrips). Although on a grand scale, CHM is the reason I came to care about clinching non-interstates.
As for the scenic byways, I'm sure they're defined somehow (that map came from something), I just have no idea what or if there's even a publicly-accessible source that's good for TM purposes.
-
It isn't just vdeane either. I also care about my 100% clinches
Me too.
Preview will go away, eventually
I don't think that preview will go away in the next ten years or even (much) later. Right now, more than 1/3 (192) of the systems in HB are in preview status. Feel free to prove me wrong by reviewing the systems quicker ;)
-
It isn't just vdeane either. I also care about my 100% clinches
Me too.
Preview will go away, eventually
I don't think that preview will go away in the next ten years or even (much) later. Right now, more than 1/3 (192) of the systems in HB are in preview status. Feel free to prove me wrong by reviewing the systems quicker ;)
Oh, I'm sure you guys will keep finding new stuff to add.
-
Can we make the Select systems a separate category in the stats, like we do with active vs active+preview? Preview will go away, eventually, and we could adjust the column titles to something like "Defined" and "Defined+Select". People who want to get 100% on official, government-defined systems could use the left column as their benchmark, and those who are more interested in maximizing their total driving mileage could use the right column.
...you know what I actually really like this idea. Better than the idea of a customizable toggle for systems in displayed stats, even.
It's far simpler to implement, and it avoids a key drawback of the toggle solution - namely, that while you can toggle what displays for you, others will have toggled differently, and it will make it impossible to properly compare stats between users who have different toggles set. This solution keeps stats displaying the same for everyone and thus keeps everyone playing the game by the same rules, but still allows people to show 100% on the "base set" of routes without fussing over the additions of extras.
-
I should clarify the way I see the select-your-systems-to-show idea working. When you are on the TM site you pick the subset of systems you want to see maps and stats for (stored in cookies) and that's how you see everyone's maps and stats, not just your own. When someone else sees your maps and stats, they would be based on what the viewing user wants to show, not what each TM user wants.
-
I should clarify the way I see the select-your-systems-to-show idea working. When you are on the TM site you pick the subset of systems you want to see maps and stats for (stored in cookies) and that's how you see everyone's maps and stats, not just your own. When someone else sees your maps and stats, they would be based on what the viewing user wants to show, not what each TM user wants.
Yeah the thing with that is that okay let's say I decide to toggle off "New Jersey 500 Series County Highways". I won't see them when I look at stats, so it'll show 100% for me when I look at NJ... but someone else who has it toggled on will see me as <100% for NJ because I haven't clinched them all, and I don't like that. I want my stats to display the same for everyone no matter who is looking at them.
There's also the matter of, just because I don't think I should need to clinch all of those to claim 100% of NJ doesn't mean I'm not interested in taking credit for the mileage I have clinched. So I wouldn't necessarily actually want to toggle the system off. But I would want it to be accounted for in a different set of stats.
Mapcat's solution is superior in both of these regards.
That said I also acknowledge here that in this example I am using what would be a comprehensive system if included, but I don't think the important distinction is actually comprehensive vs. select, it's base set vs. extras.
Any select systems would go under "extras" certainly, but so would any systems maintained by counties or equivalent (e.g. all the departmental route systems in France), systems maintained by states or equivalent but with numbers that repeat by county or equivalent, systems of unsigned routes, and named tourist routes.