Status of Travel Mapping

[english si]

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

That's fine, perhaps you would like to check for other kinds of errors (though that could include label issues) on the in-dev European systems?

[yakra]

Perhaps the system status (active/preview/InDev) could be indicted by color coding of the table cells in the HB, to avoid taking up too much on-screen real estate.

[michih]

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

That's fine, perhaps you would like to check for other kinds of errors (though that could include label issues) on the in-dev European systems?

Specify "other kinds of errors". I could check that you don't miss a route, that you don't miss an interchange and that the waypoint locations are correct.
I checked it for srba and reported a minor issue earlier this year. It's corrected meanwhile and I guess it could go online. It was before the srba thread was started.

I already asked what's required to get new systems online but didn't get any answer.....................

Do you expect that anyone checks the highway data? Will it only go online if one confirms that data is correct or will it go online anyway after x days?

I still don't know what's exactly required to get dev systems online and who has to do it.

There are already threads for lvaa, ltua and srba. Where should I report issues about dnkpr, finvt, finkt and fran (w/o using github)?

[english si]

Specify "other kinds of errors". I could check that you don't miss a route, that you don't miss an interchange and that the waypoint locations are correct.

That sort of thing, yes.

I checked it for srba and reported a minor issue earlier this year. It's corrected meanwhile and I guess it could go online. It was before the srba thread was started.

Indeed, that's the sort of thing I need.

I already asked what's required to get new systems online but didn't get any answer.....................

I'm pretty sure the answer has been given in this thread at least twice, and specific systems' specific issues have been discussed.

Where should I report issues about dnkpr, finvt, finkt and fran (w/o using github)?

I've just made threads.

Perhaps the system status (active/preview/InDev) could be indicted by color coding of the table cells in the HB, to avoid taking up too much on-screen real estate.

This - perhaps a traffic light red-yellow-green pattern (with green as active)?

[Bickendan]

Perhaps the system status (active/preview/InDev) could be indicted by color coding of the table cells in the HB, to avoid taking up too much on-screen real estate.

This - perhaps a traffic light red-yellow-green pattern (with green as active)?

Add blue or purple for active systems being brought up to standards (ie, Oregon)?

[Thing 342]

Green/yellow/red for active/preview/devel is doable with info already in the database. Having more statuses (such as those systems under improvement) would probably require a change to how updates are run.

[Jim]

Yes, the level field in the systems table indicates which are in any of the three levels.  Not hard to add to the HB.

[Jim]

Yes, the level field in the systems table indicates which are in any of the three levels.  Not hard to add to the HB.

And thanks to Thing 342, this functionality is now live on TM.

[Jim]

Yes, the level field in the systems table indicates which are in any of the three levels.  Not hard to add to the HB.

And thanks to Thing 342, this functionality is now live on TM.

Well, it's live but the DB's corrupted at the moment.  I'm running an update (after a failed update) that should get things back up and running within about 15 minutes.

[Jim]

Sorry about the hour plus of TM downtime.  I added the continents, countries, and regions tables to the DB and had a series of mistakes that caused the DB to fail to load.  Seems to be OK now (with those three new tables available to those looking to enhance the web front end).  And now you can check out Thing 342's new color-coded HB tables.

[michih]

IIRC there was a request to have a mapview layer with shapes only (borders and shoreline) so that one can see the "lines" for easier checking out which segment is not yet clinched. I've recently checked the French N roads and uses mapview for checking that there are not gaps between different systems of the region et cetera. It's sometimes hard to figure out the lines. Sometimes you only see it after zooming while the layer is still loaded.

I think it would be helpful to have a "white" layer without any map (GM, Mapnik,...) but only the traced routes. Is it possible to add a layer like this? I think it could also be a nice layer for printing because I'm quite sure that a road geek can easily navigate with a map showing road networks only .

[Jim]

IIRC there was a request to have a mapview layer with shapes only (borders and shoreline) so that one can see the "lines" for easier checking out which segment is not yet clinched. I've recently checked the French N roads and uses mapview for checking that there are not gaps between different systems of the region et cetera. It's sometimes hard to figure out the lines. Sometimes you only see it after zooming while the layer is still loaded.

I think it would be helpful to have a "white" layer without any map (GM, Mapnik,...) but only the traced routes. Is it possible to add a layer like this? I think it could also be a nice layer for printing because I'm quite sure that a road geek can easily navigate with a map showing road networks only .

I've put an issue into GitHub for this.  I'd find something like this, or at least a map layer with nothing but boundaries, to be useful as well.  If no such thing is readily available, it's possible we could create it from the boundary data from CHM that was used to generate the CHM-style maps over in that project.

[michih]

Thanks . Is there already an issue/reminder for BIng layer?

[oscar]

IIRC there was a request to have a mapview layer with shapes only (borders and shoreline) so that one can see the "lines" for easier checking out which segment is not yet clinched. I've recently checked the French N roads and uses mapview for checking that there are not gaps between different systems of the region et cetera. It's sometimes hard to figure out the lines. Sometimes you only see it after zooming while the layer is still loaded.

I think it would be helpful to have a "white" layer without any map (GM, Mapnik,...) but only the traced routes. Is it possible to add a layer like this? I think it could also be a nice layer for printing because I'm quite sure that a road geek can easily navigate with a map showing road networks only .

I've put an issue into GitHub for this.  I'd find something like this, or at least a map layer with nothing but boundaries, to be useful as well.  If no such thing is readily available, it's possible we could create it from the boundary data from CHM that was used to generate the CHM-style maps over in that project.

I'm one of the people who suggested that option, but I'm no longer sure it's useful. Main problem is CHM's shoreline data are sometimes terrible (look at a CHM map for New York City, for example), and many of the land boundaries need to be redrawn too (even in some places in North America, but especially in Europe where some country boundaries have been shifting lately). Using an online map, with its own land and water boundaries, as the base layer means we don't have to bother with all that.

[Jim]

Thanks . Is there already an issue/reminder for BIng layer?

There is now.  https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/19

[michih]

@oscar: I don't like the old CHM map but a simple blank map would be useful... (and maybe easily to be implemented?!)
@jim: Thanks. I've created a github account now (michih was already used, my account is michihdeu). Should I directly create issues there or should we always discuss it in the forum first?

[Jim]

@jim: Thanks. I've created a github account now (michih was already used, my account is michihdeu). Should I directly create issues there or should we always discuss it in the forum first?

We're still working out best ways, but either works for now.  Our new forum is up and will be opened to the public very soon, so that and GitHub will become the mechanisms.  I know for sure that we won't require people to sign up for any use GitHub just to submit issues.  The advantage of being on GitHub is that you can also easily propose a fix to something, especially if it's a minor issue that won't require much if any discussion.

[SSOWorld]

IIRC there was a request to have a mapview layer with shapes only (borders and shoreline) so that one can see the "lines" for easier checking out which segment is not yet clinched. I've recently checked the French N roads and uses mapview for checking that there are not gaps between different systems of the region et cetera. It's sometimes hard to figure out the lines. Sometimes you only see it after zooming while the layer is still loaded.

EDIT: Looking back at Oscar's response I'm starting to agree with him.  We already have an effective web overlay over an existing map (sort of like what the mob-rule County Clinching site has with status over Google Maps.). The white background maps seemed like they were extra work.   That being said, I'm not throwing out my work, but let's see what everyone's take on it is. (I may break out this into its own topic when I get home from work today)

I think it would be helpful to have a "white" layer without any map (GM, Mapnik,...) but only the traced routes. Is it possible to add a layer like this? I think it could also be a nice layer for printing because I'm quite sure that a road geek can easily navigate with a map showing road networks only .

I've put an issue into GitHub for this.  I'd find something like this, or at least a map layer with nothing but boundaries, to be useful as well.  If no such thing is readily available, it's possible we could create it from the boundary data from CHM that was used to generate the CHM-style maps over in that project.

I'm one of the people who suggested that option, but I'm no longer sure it's useful. Main problem is CHM's shoreline data are sometimes terrible (look at a CHM map for New York City, for example), and many of the land boundaries need to be redrawn too (even in some places in North America, but especially in Europe where some country boundaries have been shifting lately). Using an online map, with its own land and water boundaries, as the base layer means we don't have to bother with all that.

I had started working on this back in July - but because work had me all over the place and working too much that my life got taken from me I couldn't keep up - now the code is out-dated.  I put a reply in https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17184.msg2117290#msg2117290 and opened a github issue regarding this.  I have draft code in my branch of Web.  Even if caught up to the DB, it works, but doesn't draw clinched highways well.

[Jim]

System usanes, Nebraska State Links and Spurs, is now active in Travel Mapping.  Thanks to @yakra who (I believe) developed it, and to those who have reviewed it.

[michih]

System usanes, Nebraska State Links and Spurs, is now active in Travel Mapping.  Thanks to @yakra who (I believe) developed it, and to those who have reviewed it.

I think the highway data update list could be improved by adding a link in the "file root" column: http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?sys=usanes. I think it should be done for all new systems of the list.

[Jim]

I think the highway data update list could be improved by adding a link in the "file root" column: http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?sys=usanes. I think it should be done for all new systems of the list.

I'd go a step further and suggest that system status changes should be broken out into a separate table, both in the DB and on the updates page.  I'll make a note to myself in GitHub.

[Jim]

I think the highway data update list could be improved by adding a link in the "file root" column: http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?sys=usanes. I think it should be done for all new systems of the list.

I'd go a step further and suggest that system status changes should be broken out into a separate table, both in the DB and on the updates page.  I'll make a note to myself in GitHub.

And they are.  No links to the HB yet, but system-level changes are now in a separate table at the top of the updates page.

[Jim]

There are several new "devel" systems in TM as of today.  These are the work of Si, and he can update on the status and plans for those new systems.

[english si]

And just because they are there, doesn't mean I will treat them as a priority, all it means is that they are there.

My priorities are the systems currently in review that I'm working on.

[Jim]

I'm soon sinking into a new semester, with my heaviest teaching load ever.  I intend to continue processing list files and running site updates once every day or two, and bringing in highway data updates as they come in, but there are likely to be times when it's a few days in between.  I don't expect much time for real site development until May.