Author Topic: Stats restricted to systems/regions/etc of interest  (Read 25198 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline vdeane

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Gender: Female
  • Last Login:Today at 09:31:16 pm
    • New York State Roads
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.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Offline Bickendan

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 543
  • Last Login:May 24, 2024, 08:52:47 pm
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.

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 969
  • Last Login:Today at 08:10:56 pm
How to handle systems some users want and others don't in stats
« Reply #47 on: April 14, 2024, 06:59:29 pm »
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.

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1658
  • Last Login:Today at 08:56:41 pm
Re: How to handle systems some users want and others don't in stats
« Reply #48 on: April 14, 2024, 07:51:25 pm »
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.
Clinched:

Offline Jim

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2761
  • Last Login:Today at 09:08:48 pm
Re: How to handle systems some users want and others don't in stats
« Reply #49 on: April 14, 2024, 08:41:07 pm »
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.

Offline vdeane

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Gender: Female
  • Last Login:Today at 09:31:16 pm
    • New York State Roads
Re: How to handle systems some users want and others don't in stats
« Reply #50 on: April 14, 2024, 10:54:24 pm »
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.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4594
  • Last Login:Today at 03:07:57 pm
Re: How to handle systems some users want and others don't in stats
« Reply #51 on: April 15, 2024, 12:32:53 pm »
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 ;)

Offline vdeane

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Gender: Female
  • Last Login:Today at 09:31:16 pm
    • New York State Roads
Re: How to handle systems some users want and others don't in stats
« Reply #52 on: April 15, 2024, 12:57:00 pm »
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.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 969
  • Last Login:Today at 08:10:56 pm
Re: How to handle systems some users want and others don't in stats
« Reply #53 on: April 15, 2024, 07:13:21 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2024, 07:16:38 pm by Duke87 »

Offline Jim

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2761
  • Last Login:Today at 09:08:48 pm
Re: How to handle systems some users want and others don't in stats
« Reply #54 on: April 15, 2024, 09:06:26 pm »
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.

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 969
  • Last Login:Today at 08:10:56 pm
Re: How to handle systems some users want and others don't in stats
« Reply #55 on: April 15, 2024, 11:59:42 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2024, 12:16:47 am by Duke87 »