Do we need newsworthy update entries if there is no traveler around?

[michih]

When there are newsworthy changes to routes of active system, we always add an Update entry.
With the latest modifications to HDX, our highway data managers are now able to check if anyone has traveled the relevant region around the change. If there is no traveler, do we need the update entry nonetheless?

I've sometimes not added entries, e.g. moving B51 onto the new Belm bypass in Lower Saxony, where I was the only traveler on the old route.
@panda80 has recently omitted an update entry for DN56C truncation in Romania for the same reason. He has added it meanwhile though.

Should we always add all newsworthy entries or can we omit them when no one traveled there?

[yakra]

I think it's good to have the historical info available for major changes like a relocation, extension, or truncation.

If it's just a waypoint being renamed due to a relocation, I'll only include an entry if the affected waypoint label is in use.

[Markkos1992]

I agree with yakra on this.

[Jim]

I'd say use your judgement.  Earlier in the project, we still had a good number of CHM people finding us, and it was good to have the info there for their benefit.  It's nice to have the info recorded when significant, but keep in mind we have the GitHub history as well.

[yakra]

I'd consider the GitHub history more of a "power user" option though. It can take a bit of digging to find out what happened, when and how.

[oscar]

When there are newsworthy changes to routes of active system, we always add an Update entry.
With the latest modifications to HDX, our highway data managers are now able to check if anyone has traveled the relevant region around the change. If there is no traveler, do we need the update entry nonetheless?

I've sometimes not added entries, e.g. moving B51 onto the new Belm bypass in Lower Saxony, where I was the only traveler on the old route.

...

Should we always add all newsworthy entries or can we omit them when no one traveled there?

I've made Updates entries for changes I've made when I'm the only known traveler, for example the recent removal of ak.ak010chi

[vdeane]

I could see the update entries being useful if, say, someone who hadn't yet traveled there was using TM as a trip planning aid.  That would call out that something they had been looking at had changed.  It could also be useful for someone who has entered data on their .list file but hasn't yet submitted the version with that route on it.

[si404]

Also, say, a new user compiling historic travels. OK it only goes a while back, but it might help them do it.

[Jim]

It sounds like we are going toward a standard that routing changes, extensions, truncations, removals, and additions should always be updated.  Other things, like label changes, renumberings, etc., are already only noted in updates if the changes are to points in use.  At least I'd like to think that entries like "renumbered exit 43 to exit 42" would not be included if no one was using the 43 label.

[julmac]

Also, say, a new user compiling historic travels. OK it only goes a while back, but it might help them do it.

It sounds like we are going toward a standard that routing changes, extensions, truncations, removals, and additions should always be updated.  Other things, like label changes, renumberings, etc., are already only noted in updates if the changes are to points in use.  At least I'd like to think that entries like "renumbered exit 43 to exit 42" would not be included if no one was using the 43 label.

Agree with this approach. I for one am backlogged in travel entries I need to do in the UK, mostly for travels that occurred over 20 years ago. I'm going to have to piece together the journeys as they were, prior to any recent re-routings or bypasses, so any paper trail will be useful to me.

[si404]

Of course, the paper trail doesn't go back 20 years, but it's something!