Travel Mapping
Web Design Discussion => General Web Design Discussion => Topic started by: Jim on June 01, 2020, 03:49:09 pm
-
Those of us who work on TM have come to understand the distinction between "routes" and "connected routes". But is that good terminology to present to end users? In the development of the topstats page, I've named them "in-region routes" and "connected routes" but I'm not especially happy with that. Suggestions?
-
Maybe "single-region routes" and "multi-region routes". Or maybe "contiguous routes".
Mike
-
Tim called them "chopped routes" and I've carried on that terminology, but it doesn't seem to be in wide use otherwise. There's one forum post (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=1868.msg6902#msg6902) that's not by or quoting me...
-
I don't like that we need to distinguish them. 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.
-
As long as getting the stuff for the old way is still easy. My .list is organized by region and changing it to organize by system at this point would be a big project.
Just curious, what is the 6-field user list file option I keep seeing referenced?
-
As long as getting the stuff for the old way is still easy. My .list is organized by region and changing it to organize by system at this point would be a big project.
Just curious, what is the 6-field user list file option I keep seeing referenced?
http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=3648
https://github.com/TravelMapping/DataProcessing/pull/333
https://github.com/TravelMapping/DataProcessing/issues/58
-
As long as getting the stuff for the old way is still easy. My .list is organized by region and changing it to organize by system at this point would be a big project.
I fully concur. I believe most current users work by region.
Would some sort of flag (like miles/km) be a way of doing this?
Just curious, what is the 6-field user list file option I keep seeing referenced?
A feature being tested currently that allows people to express continuous travel on multi-region connected-routes with just one line in their .lists.
The old method would continue to work (and I'll probably revert my .list file to that once tested)
-
Just curious, what is the 6-field user list file option I keep seeing referenced?
A hidden feature which needs to be tested first. It looks good, nothing seems to be broken. It will be a new option* to ease adding multi-region user list file entries especially when a route crosses the border multiple times. We'll explain how it works when the test period is over.
*The current way will stay in place. The new feature is just optional.
-
6-field discussion moved:
http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=3648.msg19031#msg19031