View Associated Routes

[mapcat]

I like this feature in general, but would prefer that it be limited to routes of the same class, i.e. clicking it while on, say, I-70 in Indiana would produce a map/table for I-70 in all states it enters, but not the various I-70 business routes. Or make it a user option to include the business routes (and possibly child interstates).

[yakra]

Not completely sure what you're describing. Are you thinking of something like the "Intersecting highways shown:" feature on CHM? Or something similar to highway.php? Something new-n-exciting?

Edit: One possibility might be to add Route, Banner, or even Abbrev & City as "advanced search" parameters to hb.php....

[Jim]

Check out:

http://tm.teresco.org/hbtest/mapview.php?u=terescoj&rte=I-90

for example.

Nice new feature from Thing 342.

[rickmastfan67]

Check out:

http://tm.teresco.org/hbtest/mapview.php?u=terescoj&rte=I-90

for example.

Nice new feature from Thing 342.

That's pretty sweet.  However, it will need work with putting the segments in the correct order in the grid.
http://tm.teresco.org/hbtest/mapview.php?u=terescoj&rte=I-74

I-74 is in pretty bad shape as it's going in 'alphabetical' order.   Maybe we need to create special CSV files for that?

[michih]

^^ I've submitted an issue: https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/40.

[michih]

I think it's not possible to know all mapview url options and how to get them.
I've submitted an issue for a tutorial on the web page: https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/41.

[mapcat]

Sorry for not specifying that I was referring to the link underneath the route shield above the table on a page like this one. Click on it and you get a map of the highway in all states it passes through, plus its bannered brethren.

I agree that it would be better to arrange the table geographically rather than alphabetically.

Another potential issue is that it groups completely unrelated routes together: see what it does with rte=a1

[yakra]

Another potential issue is that it groups completely unrelated routes together: see what it does with rte=a1

http://tm.teresco.org/hbtest/mapview.php?u=mapcat&rte=a1&rg=DEU
http://tm.teresco.org/hbtest/mapview.php?u=mapcat&rte=a1&sys=deua

Hey, me like!
http://tm.teresco.org/hbtest/mapview.php?u=yakra&rte=US2&rg=NY,VT,NH,ME

So, a solution could be... integrating info from the route's _con.csv file...
Look at the prefixes of each fileroot in the Roots column, and see what regions are needed to display.

Another potential issue is that it groups completely unrelated routes together: see what it does with rte=a1

Trying to figure out why the map at that link was panned and centered where it was, I discovered that it's displaying MA1A. Now that, I would call a bona fide error.
It should be "Route = A1," rather than "Route contains A1". Or, Thing342, did you initially see problems implementing it that way?

Nice feature overall; well done. I'd completely missed it till Jim & mapcat pointed it out. When was it added?

[yakra]

I-70 in Indiana would produce a map/table for I-70 in all states it enters, but not the various I-70 business routes.

To do it using the current functionality:
http://tm.teresco.org/hbtest/mapview.php?u=mapcat&rte=I-70&sys=usai
http://tm.teresco.org/hbtest/mapview.php?u=yakra&rte=I-84&sys=usai

Playing around some more with URL customization...

The "connected routes" method I mentioned in my last post, for just the eastern I-84:
http://tm.teresco.org/hbtest/mapview.php?u=yakra&rte=I-84&rg=PA,NY,CT,MA

...Or just the eastern US2:
http://tm.teresco.org/hbtest/mapview.php?u=yakra&rte=US2&rg=NY,VT,NH,ME

Eastern US2 sans child routes:
http://tm.teresco.org/hbtest/mapview.php?u=yakra&rte=US2&sys=usaus&rg=NY,VT,NH,ME

Or make it a user option to include the business routes

Having the ability to surf to all of this stuff in one or two clicks would be swell.

(and possibly child interstates).

I'm envisioning using a wildcard in the rte= parameter, e.g. rte=I-*70

Another possibility: adding a ban= parameter could enable displaying just the Bus, but not Alt, routes for example.
There would need to be some value to represent bannerless routes, e.g. ban=! or ban=NULL etc., to be able to display mainline routes along with some-but-not-all bannered routes (e.g. mainline + Bus but not Alt, or mainline + BL but not BS).
I don't consider this a priority, mind you; I'm just brainstorming about what's possible.

[michih]

@yakra, I like your ideas and agree that it's low priority. Please submit a github issue so that the ideas don't get lost. Thanks.

[yakra]

Meh, I don't think everything needs a GitHub issue. I'd prefer to keep the signal-to-noise ratio over there more manageable; devels over there have lot to keep track of. My mentioning the topic here is nothing more than simple brainstorming, not even rising to the level of a request for a feature. If Thing342 or whoever else may be working on the website & mapview.php is actually seriously planning on implementing it, they're welcome to create an issue to track that themselves if they see fit.

The issue won't get lost. It's right here in the forum. That's what the forum is for. Some things deserve at least a little public discussion first before being immediatekly tracked onto the to-do list.

[michih]

I respect your opinion but we already had a forum - on aaroads.com - and my experience is that some ideas of mine got lost. I think that's quite normal about "low priority" ideas.

Again, I like your proposal. What should I do now, rely on the developers that they will remember the proposal one day or should I submit an issue?

[yakra]

I respect your opinion but we already had a forum - on aaroads.com - and my experience is that some ideas of mine got lost. I think that's quite normal about "low priority" ideas.

AARoads was never meant to be a permanent solution; it was only temporary till we got this forum up and running.
In my view, there are a lot of issues open on GitHub, and ideas are getting lost there already too; ones the devels may not be too keen on pursuing. It's that signal-to-noise ratio, again.

Again, I like your proposal. What should I do now, rely on the developers that they will remember the proposal one day or should I submit an issue?

I can't tell you what to do. And while I may not agree it's the best course of action, I cannot stop you from submitting a GitHub issue if you so choose. Just keep in mind that even if you do, you'll likely still rely on the developers that they will remember the proposal one day.

TBH this post kinda got under my skin a bit:

Don't get me wrong, it's the right way for "normal users" to post issue here but I think the "developer" open issue list is on github. That's why I've copied your note to github.

Coming along and telling us where the discussion should be happening, I don't dig that.
Functions such as the stuff discussed upthread bear a lot of discussion and thought. No sense having all that discussion go on in two places.
Best to have a solid proposal, and a single simple item to create an issue, something that can be checked off easily, but again -- just my opinion.

Keep in mind also that having a forum much like this one was the primary mode of communication and discussing the direction of the CHM project for MANY years, and worked very well IMO. This form of communication will be familiar and very natural to those veterans who've been around CHM/TM a long time. I can't speak for the others, but some may well prefer this form of communication and tracking of tasks. I know I for one do.

Not just "normal users"; the developers will be making heavy use of this forum. I guarantee it.

[Bickendan]

Low priority, but I'd like the routes that retain their numbers when crossing national boundaries (US/BC 97 et al) to be associated with each other. I'd even extend that to MSR routes (ID/MT/ND/MN 200).

[rickmastfan67]

I respect your opinion but we already had a forum - on aaroads.com - and my experience is that some ideas of mine got lost. I think that's quite normal about "low priority" ideas.

AARoads was never meant to be a permanent solution; it was only temporary till we got this forum up and running.

This.  Alex was kind enough to allow us to have a temporary section there till we got this place up and running.  We don't want to abuse that kindness by having 1,000+ topics in that section.