Status of Travel Mapping

[Jim]

A feature I mentioned earlier now has a preliminary implementation. Highway systems now have a third option between "active" and "in-development" called "preview".  Systems denoted as preview are those that are intended to be complete but awaiting review and (hopefully) only minor fixes before activation.  In the normal logs and maps, they continue to be treated the same as before.  However, a second instance of the database is populated as if the preview systems are active rather than in-development, so they show up on maps (and soon perhaps in an alternate per-user log file).

For now, the only place that honors the new option is the draft map overlay viewer.  Include preview systems in maps by specifying the alternate DB's name as a query string parameter.  For example, to see my NM travels with the usanm "preview" system included, you would use:

http://tm.teresco.org/hbtest/mapview.php?rg=NM&db=TravelMappingDev&u=terescoj

Along with many of the other features, I expect and intend that these query string parameters would be generated automatically by some nice front-end web pages some day.  For now, it's a good way for those who submit .lists to find mistakes and omissions in the preview systems before they go active, and for highway data managers to see the routes and hopefully also find mistakes before activation.

Important note: updates entries will not be made for changes to systems in preview status, so users should expect things to "break" their list files until those systems are deemed ready to be moved to full active status.

So far, I picked the following as the systems I thought were intended to be substantially complete and worthy of the "preview" status: usavt, usanm, usaco, usava, usawy, usain, usamt.  I expect some of the systems in Canada and outside of North America will soon be added to the preview set at the discretion of the highway data developers.

Enjoy! (and please let me know if anything appears to have been broken by this.)

[english si]

Looks excellent.

I expect some of the systems in Canada and outside of North America will soon be added to the preview set at the discretion of the highway data developers.

I've just put the remaining British A road systems as preview ones.

[oscar]

Possibly related, but some of my error log entries have new additional language, for example:

Waypoint label(s) not found in line: TX US59 RivDr TXLp20 [<__main__.Waypoint object at 0x107a10630>]

This entry is for a segment of an active route, with one valid waypoint and the other not yet valid (pending confirmation that the AASHTO-approved reroute of US 59 in Laredo has been carried out).

On the list of "preview" systems, I suggest adding usaak. That draft system is complete, and review has already started with no major issues flagged, which puts it in the same category as usaco, usain, usava, and usawy. canab is another candidate, if yakra agrees.

[Jim]

I expect some of the systems in Canada and outside of North America will soon be added to the preview set at the discretion of the highway data developers.

I've just put the remaining British A road systems as preview ones.

Thanks.  They're now in the TravelMappingDev DB.

[Jim]

Possibly related, but some of my error log entries have new additional language, for example:

Waypoint label(s) not found in line: TX US59 RivDr TXLp20 [<__main__.Waypoint object at 0x107a10630>]
This entry is for a segment of an active route, with one valid waypoint and the other not yet valid (pending confirmation that the AASHTO-approved reroute of US 59 in Laredo has been carried out).

I was in that part of the code when thinking about the problem of zero-length segments.  Looks like I broke something.  I'll investigate when I can.  I think it only affects lines that were invalid.

On the list of "preview" systems, I suggest adding usaak. That draft system is complete, and review has already started with no major issues flagged, which puts it in the same category as usaco, usain, usava, and usawy. canab is another candidate, if yakra agrees.

I'll put in usaak and launch another "dev" update.

I'll add that at the moment, I've made a "quick and dirty" way of doing this: I just run the site update program twice with different parameters.  I know I can do things much more efficiently down the line.

[yakra]

Yay neato! I'll have to add my VT travels straight away.

One suggestion:
Change the logfile output for lines such as Ignoring line matching highway in inactive system: MT MT78 I-90 PikeAve_E to either acknowledge the system's preview status, or mute them entirely.
I expect some travelers would be heavy users of the Preview feature, and include a lot of lines in their .lists. This could make for a lot of noise in .log files (which many users may have already with inactive/in-dev systems). Maybe muting is the better option?

(pending confirmation that the AASHTO-approved reroute of US 59 in Laredo has been carried out).

Of course, this would be TXLp20_S because of the multiplex. Or maybe US59Bus would get the nod. Or...

canab is another candidate, if yakra agrees.

All five of mine can go preview. Review has begun; the other four have had issues reported, with some fixed and some explained/discussed. I'll get a pull request in.

[Jim]

One suggestion:
Change the logfile output for lines such as Ignoring line matching highway in inactive system: MT MT78 I-90 PikeAve_E to either acknowledge the system's preview status, or mute them entirely.
I expect some travelers would be heavy users of the Preview feature, and include a lot of lines in their .lists. This could make for a lot of noise in .log files (which many users may have already with inactive/in-dev systems). Maybe muting is the better option?

Post coming soon about two sets of log files (for now).

[Jim]

Once the update running now completes, several more systems will be promoted from "devel" to "preview".

I've also added a second set of log files that will include (among other things) per-user logs/stats with the preview systems considered active:

http://tm.teresco.org/devlogs/

The original logs with just the active systems considered active remain at

http://tm.teresco.org/logs/

At some point, I intend to merge all of this into something easier to deal with, but for now this is the easiest way to get this going.

I know I've already noticed mistakes in my own preliminary .list entries for these preview systems.  My hope is that the real win is going to be another tool for those doing peer review to get these preview systems ready to be promoted to full active status.

[Jim]

The URLs for the draft highway browser now also take the db=TravelMappingDev query string parameter, so you can view your travels on an individual route including preview routes.  For example, my VT 100:

http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=vt.vt100&db=TravelMappingDev&u=terescoj

[mapcat]

Great to see the new systems moving towards activation. No one has said anything recently about the next KY state routes set (1000-1499), which appeared to be complete and ready for peer-review in CHM. Has there been any progress on this?

[yakra]

Great to see the new systems moving towards activation. No one has said anything recently about the next KY state routes set (1000-1499), which appeared to be complete and ready for peer-review in CHM. Has there been any progress on this?

Kentucky was Tim's territory back before CHM went inactive.
Just guessing here, as I don't know what's going on and can't speak for other collaborators... According to the How the work is split thread, no one's officially taken on KY for maintenance purposes (unless someone volunteered in another thread and I missed it). So it's possibly a lack of interest, free time or attention span...

[english si]

I started peer reviewing it in July 2013. The errors I found (and Jim found some too) and posted in July weren't fixed by September, where I posted a reminder (and they still aren't fixed). This was still when Tim was around, but he was so unbothered by the subsystem that he didn't even make a reply.

Also, if we start having some 4-digit routes in KY clinchable, that opens the issue of having to do the others. I love making route files for TM, but I would despise doing that! Way too many routes, most of which are really short and boring.

[yakra]

Personally, more Canadian systems would be higher on my priority list.

[rickmastfan67]

Great to see the new systems moving towards activation. No one has said anything recently about the next KY state routes set (1000-1499), which appeared to be complete and ready for peer-review in CHM. Has there been any progress on this?

Kentucky was Tim's territory back before CHM went inactive.
Just guessing here, as I don't know what's going on and can't speak for other collaborators... According to the How the work is split thread, no one's officially taken on KY for maintenance purposes (unless someone volunteered in another thread and I missed it). So it's possibly a lack of interest, free time or attention span...

I've occasionally done some minor fixes in KY since I did have the state (Interstates & US Highways) before Tim took it over while doing the state highways.  I know there are a few things that do need to be fixed (like some US-60 reroutes).

[vdeane]

I suppose the question there would be, are those Kentucky routes part of the primary state route system?  It wouldn't make sense to leave routes out just because they're small.  If, however, they're secondaries, that would open the door to including every minor secondary in every state (including conceivably Virginia's 600 series routes, NY's reference routes, and maybe even NJ's county routes).

I'd love to see Quebec's provincial routes added.  That would probably be next on my wishlist after getting Vermont activated.

[oscar]

I suppose the question there would be, are those Kentucky routes part of the primary state route system?  It wouldn't make sense to leave routes out just because they're small.  If, however, they're secondaries, that would open the door to including every minor secondary in every state (including conceivably Virginia's 600 series routes, NY's reference routes, and maybe even NJ's county routes).

All the Kentucky routes are signed the same, except with the usual boring circle stretched into an oval for the 3- and 4-digit routes.

I'd love to see Quebec's provincial routes added.  That would probably be next on my wishlist after getting Vermont activated.

This one could use a lot of help from a French-speaker. Auto-translate only gets you so far, as I've found in dealing with the smaller universe of Quebec Autoroutes.

I have a moderate amount of interest in having Quebec provincial routes added. But the same goes for almost every other North American jurisdiction where we don't already have provincial/state route sets. When I took over updating the Autoroutes, I left the door wide open (in "How the work is split") for someone else to do Quebec provincial routes.

[SSOWorld]

I suppose the question there would be, are those Kentucky routes part of the primary state route system?  It wouldn't make sense to leave routes out just because they're small.  If, however, they're secondaries, that would open the door to including every minor secondary in every state (including conceivably Virginia's 600 series routes, NY's reference routes, and maybe even NJ's county routes).

All the Kentucky routes are signed the same, except with the usual boring circle stretched into an oval for the 3- and 4-digit routes.

I'd love to see Quebec's provincial routes added.  That would probably be next on my wishlist after getting Vermont activated.

This one could use a lot of help from a French-speaker. Auto-translate only gets you so far, as I've found in dealing with the smaller universe of Quebec Autoroutes.

I have a moderate amount of interest in having Quebec provincial routes added. But the same goes for almost every other North American jurisdiction where we don't already have provincial/state route sets. When I took over updating the Autoroutes, I left the door wide open (in "How the work is split") for someone else to do Quebec provincial routes.

Ping DrFrankenstein for translations.

[Jim]

New Mexico State Highways (usanm) are now ACTIVE in Travel Mapping.  A mere 911 days after I submitted the first complete draft to CHM, 1281 days after I submitted my first batch of routes to CHM, and 1940 days after I claimed the system as my next to develop after the completion of usama.  Many, many thanks to Oscar for taking over in the last several weeks to get the system ready to go, and to everyone who reported problems and especially solutions to those problems.

[bejacob]

With New Mexico State Highways now active, which preview systems are likely to move to the front of the queue?

I seem to recall a couple other systems were close (VT?). I know it takes a lot of work to get everything ready. I've lost track of which systems are close and thought another update would be good for everyone.

[oscar]

With New Mexico State Highways now active, which preview systems are likely to move to the front of the queue?

I seem to recall a couple other systems were close (VT?). I know it takes a lot of work to get everything ready. I've lost track of which systems are close and thought another update would be good for everyone.

I think MT and VT are closest. Next up behind them, in no particular order: AK, IN, VA, CO, WY, AB, TX.

[Jim]

With New Mexico State Highways now active, which preview systems are likely to move to the front of the queue?

I seem to recall a couple other systems were close (VT?). I know it takes a lot of work to get everything ready. I've lost track of which systems are close and thought another update would be good for everyone.

And there's all kinds of stuff in progress in Europe, but I don't know how close those might be.

[english si]

British A roads beginning with 1, 6, 8, 9 are waiting. Any objections, get them in this year, as I will merge them with the main system on New Years Day if I hear nothing before.

There's some concurrency issues with E roads and in-dev systems that I'll fix (by changing the E roads to match) in the next couple of days.

lvaa, ltua and srba need an experienced hand to look over them and check I've not made errors in style. Should take whomever does it not very long. There's 15, 20 and 6 routes respectively with none of them long.

dnkpr, finvt, finkt, fran need peer review, but I believe them done.

[rschen7754]

If it wouldn't be too hard, would it be possible to add a column for the status of the route system in the highway browser? That way, we could tell what is in development or not from there.

[michih]

lvaa, ltua and srba need an experienced hand to look over them and check I've not made errors in style. Should take whomever does it not very long. There's 15, 20 and 6 routes respectively with none of them long.
dnkpr, finvt, finkt, fran need peer review, but I believe them done.

I could try to check them but I guess I'm not "experienced" with the style. Sorry.

[Jim]

If it wouldn't be too hard, would it be possible to add a column for the status of the route system in the highway browser? That way, we could tell what is in development or not from there.

Yes, I would like to add this when I fix up the data processing code to be better aware of and more efficient at processing data with the new system status levels.