Another issue with the Seaway Trail - it
doesn't follow NY 5 west of Hamburg. Unfortunately, signage isn't entirely clear west of that point. It appears to follow the route in
this map around there, but there are locations where it doesn't follow the route in that map (like around I-190, the LaSalle, and NY 384). I expect each turn will need to be verified to get the correct route.
And for others, it may be more than just Ogdensburg; there's over 40 miles between Rochester and Oswego that's off the state route system, plus the two short connections in Niagara Falls. I am fortunate to live close enough to have most of that clinched already, but there's a segment near Wolcott I'll have to grab at some point. I do like the fact that the Seaway Trail connects to NY 250 and NY 14 at their northern termini so they no longer look like dead ends.
I'm missing those as well (well, I'm 95% certain I have everything around Niagara Falls), but at least they're not hard to get (I was actually considering whether I want to go to Chimney Bluffs State Park in one of my trips out this year; I guess I should prioritize that). Ogdensburg is the one that presents a logistical challenge. The closest I expect to come this year is Alexandria Bay (well, Blind Bay, actually, but I probably won't be driving for that part, and good luck convincing my parents to go on a 45 mile round-trip detour), but taking 45 minutes to clinch two miles of Seaway Trail and then deadheading back isn't my idea of fun.
Welp. There goes my 100% of NY for a long, long while.
40-50 days is a long, long while? either my roadtrip schedule or TravelMapping map will be messed up for a long while.
6-7 weeks is sooooo long!
Is this your attempt to sneak in stuff that wouldn't have otherwise been added?
if it wasn't for spoilsports like you ranting about goalposts moving (like this is a game) and maps not looking good (like this is an art project), these routes would have been added long ago.
People have been asking for the Great River Road and Lincoln Highway, etc as they want to map their travels on them for a good few years now and the reason they haven't been added is because we want to be able to hide stuff before we add them permanently so that the game players and map artists are appeased when the travel mappers finally get what they want.
As you can see from this thread, I'm the cautious one here wanting a short glimpse now and then nothing until we fix the issue, while others want the system to simply not disappear. I'm the one being considerate to your point of view here - why are you targeting me with your rant?
I very much want you to be able to play whatever games you want and make whatever art you want with the data. I just wanted to give the many many people who want this a short period where they can look at such routes without your veto while we wait for a solution that pleases all users.
Not sure where you're getting 6-7 weeks/40-50 days from. My travel for this year is pretty much spoken for already. The earliest I would expect is winter next year, and
that's if nothing dislodges any of my planned fall trips and the weather cooperates (very much not a sure thing in this part of the state; I'm only moderately more willing to go to Region 7 or the Adirondacks in winter than the Green Mountains). Also nothing of a higher priority coming up (filling in gaps elsewhere, re-clinching re-aligned routes, etc.).
Apologies if it seemed the whole post was directed at you. It wasn't; only the sentence below the quote was (and I was half joking, though I didn't make enough effort to convey that given that I was rather frustrated at the time). It was directed at the seeming majority that wants to just keep it around right now. Having had 24 hours to mull it over, I have fewer objections than I did, but I would still prefer it not be live at this time. It was sprung on everyone with essentially no warning, and as it stands, it's basically devel quality. As noted, the Seaway Trail has a ton of issues, and I found at least one more that hasn't been noted. There's the question of what to include (this will probably always be a point of frustration, as it's essentially a grab-bag system with little way to predict what might get added over time; at least with usasf and cansf, you can just make sure to clinch any freeway just in case). And, of course, the concurrences. At a minimum I would want the concurrency issue to be addressed and the Seaway Trail and other routes to be fixed onto their correct alignments before it's permanently in preview, with a drop to devel before that is finished. And, also, changing the color. Perhaps the dark green I brought up when we were discussing colors for usanp?
Welp. There goes my 100% of NY for a long, long while.
Back again: https://travelmapping.net/user/mapview.php?u=vdeane&rg=NY&sys=usai,usaus,usanyp,usaif,usasf,usausb,usany,usapa
Yeah, IMO that's too custom to really count.
I have a question that may be on the minds of others.
Is this systems likely to stick around?
If so, I want to update my .list file to include segments I've driven that aren't already covered by existing routes. If not, I'd rather not take the time and effort.
I don't really have a preference for either option, but it would be nice to know before adding quite a few lines to my list.
That seems to be the case. That said, I'm not touching anything on it until the concurrency/alignment issues are fixed.
still don't understand the controversy...
As long as there are separately named systems, people can ignore the ones they don't care about and go for 100% in the ones they do. This would be the compromise for adding non/underposted state routes - they would get a separate system from the state highways system.
Having 100% on TM for a state overall has zero meaning. Unless every road in the state is in TM, it displaying somebody has driven 100% of that state is inaccurate and arbitrary to whatever somebody includes in that state's mappable travels.
Eh, that doesn't
quite work (at least for things other than railways, which are on a separate site). I was content to ignore anything that wasn't an interstate up until the point where CHM got concurrency detection, at which point it became a question of inaccurate stats or mapping everything.
I would far prefer that usatr fall back to devel status, rather than going away, until the questions about it can be discussed and decisions made.
I can agree with that.
