Clinched Highway Mapping

[treichard]

Another new highway system has been added to the site: Italian Motorways (Autostrade), data provided by me.

Site: http://cmap.m-plex.com/index.php

We're closing in on completing all the motorway systems across Europe that are given a special designation. Twenty of the 25 countries are completed, and travels on them can be highlighted.

[SSOWorld]

looks fine to me (but then again I'm not logged in at this location)

[treichard]

Two new state highway systems have been added from New England:

- New Hampshire state highways, from Eric Bryant.
- Rhode Island state highways, from Jason Proctor.

http://cmap.m-plex.com/index.php

[Duke87]

Okay, so, question with regards to highway systems not online yet:

If I include these in my list file anyway, will that cause errors? Or will the program simply ignore and skip over anything it doesn't recognize?

[rickmastfan67]

Okay, so, question with regards to highway systems not online yet:

If I include these in my list file anyway, will that cause errors? Or will the program simply ignore and skip over anything it doesn't recognize?

Errors will show up in the "Error Log".  Something like this:
***Error! Unrecognized region & highway combo in: PA PA28TrkTit PA28_S PA28_N

http://cmap.m-plex.com/trav/rickmastfan67.log.txt <-- Just change my name to yours to see it.  You can also view yours on any of your pages.  Just click the "LOG" text.

But when the system is activated, the error will disappear and you'll automatically have that segment clinched.  However, the non-active routes can change, so you have to double check when a network comes online.

[yakra]

Two new state highway systems have been added from New England:

- New Hampshire state highways, from Eric Bryant.
- Rhode Island state highways, from Jason Proctor.

Also, the US Select Numbered State Freeways system is now live.

This system is temporary and will shrink and vanish as full state systems are completed.

[oscar]

However, the non-active routes can change, so you have to double check when a network comes online.

Indeed, many of the point labels on non-active routes are corrected soon before the route set goes live.  So if you start drafting entries for your travels as a set is being developed, you'll probably end up having to fix some of them later.

[Alex]

I have a suggestion/question, would it be easier for users to be able to just enter one entry for routes that are 100% clinched? Is that possible given the format of the entry system?

This would eliminate users from having to check routes already entered to make sure that they are still clinched. I lost three full clinches in my recent update and don't always double check the previously entered data to ensure that its still accurate.

When Exit 1 was changed to 1A for I-10 CA, it altered my percentage from 100% to 99.7%. Generally speaking, once a route is clinched, it never changes (with exceptions like I-520 SC, I-195 RI, I-376 PA). So having a switch of "all" could take care of this.

[froggie]

Because of the myriad possiblity and range of changes that could happen to a given route, this is exactly why some of the onus is on the user to check.  We as project collaborators take considerable pain to ensure that changes to already-live routes minimize changes to the point labels.  But sometimes errors need to be fixed and/or changes need to be made, and it's up to the user to check their errors that crop up (which is why we have the error log for each user) and/or check the updates list.

One entry wouldn't be possible anyway, given how the system is set up (unless Tim knows something that I don't).  We'd have to go back to using "0" and "999" for each route.  A *LOT* of work for the collaborators.  We're also trying to minimize duplicate points which is partly why the "0" and "999" came off to begin with.

[Bickendan]

And the Exit 1 to 1A on CA I-10 in specific might have been a change to accurately reflect the CA 1 duplex as I was drafting the CA 1 route.

[Alex]

Is there not a way to set up a bool where 1 = clinched and 0 = unclinched that overrides the individual entries of 0 to 999?

The problem is, changes like 1A to 1 as the west end of I-10 do not show up on the error logs. You only know when you see 99.7% vs. 100%. I understand that work the amount of work that is involved with the project, but I generally do not check 48 states worth of entries each time I update. I only notice the 99%'s when I peruse. I also understand that with multiple contributors, it is difficult to manage one central log that keeps track of changes such as this. I noted that my I-595 FL entry was knocked down with the west end went from 1A to I-75.

I will remind myself to check http://cmap.m-plex.com/updatesminor.php periodically to stay on top of these types of changes. Perhaps a color code can be used in the updates section to differentiate between additions, error changes, and deletions?

[froggie]

Is there not a way to set up a bool where 1 = clinched and 0 = unclinched that overrides the individual entries of 0 to 999?

Not when the system requires two inputs...start point and end point.

[treichard]

Highway extensions that would reduce your % clinched value are supposed to be included on our updates page rather than in the personal logs.  That I-10 one appears to be have been mistakenly omitted. 

It would be easy to offer the "clinched whole route" option, but it would be a mistake to do so because it would be automatically applied to any later extensions.  When a route is extended, the extension should be "not clinched" by default until the user decides to say s/he has clinched it.

[treichard]

We offer two more highway systems at the Clinched Highway Mapping site:

- Kansas State Highways: Data provided by Michael Wasleski.
- Switzerland Motorways (Autobahnen): Data provided by ChrisZwolle.

Travelers can now highlight their travels on 60 highway systems across North America and Europe.
http://cmap.m-plex.com/index.php

[Scott5114]

Is there a better way to update the log file in development? I need for there to be some way to update the log interactively, like http://mob-rule.com/counties has. I just have the Interstates entered, since that was all there was when I started entering highways, but since the US routes have been added, the state systems have been added faster than I can keep up with them. I'm so far behind it'll take forever to add everything manually

[froggie]

It's easier for mob-rule to do such with the counties since the counties are fairly static and not changing, plus the number of them (3100-and-change) is not a huge number.

Not so with CHM, where individual road files change much more often, plus a single road set has many thousands of individual segments.

Possible?  Perhaps.  Feasible?  Not really, IMO.  Any interactive system would have to read the road sets basically every time in case there were changes made, which would be a huge drain on Tim's server...and the server's loaded down as it is.

[rschen7754]

Is there a better way to update the log file in development? I need for there to be some way to update the log interactively, like http://mob-rule.com/counties has. I just have the Interstates entered, since that was all there was when I started entering highways, but since the US routes have been added, the state systems have been added faster than I can keep up with them. I'm so far behind it'll take forever to add everything manually

Darn, just when I thought I might catch up with you...

[Scott5114]

It would even be slightly more tolerable if there was a way to directly edit the file from the Web interface, somewhat like a wiki (though only editable by you, of course). Or if you wanted to add some JS/flash, you could even do something simple like have a "timeline" sort of display where you marked X through Y clinched. Anything would be better than the way it is now.

[Bickendan]

Hmm, time to add my Swiss travels, I see.

[yakra]

In the future, I think having a GUI setup that automates creation of a .list file could be pretty feasible. Add a GEvent Listener to each segment of the GPolyline. Click to toggle it as clinched<->not clinched.
If clicking every segment is tedious, well, uhh... I really dunno how the gmaps API is with shift-clicking n'at...
But a more linear process of clicking the start then endpoint of a clinched segment could also be rigged up.
Also leaving the option of a text wiki-style .list editing interface open for those who like that is a good idea IMO...

...But these are discussions that we'd best not get into on Tim's busy month...

[agentsteel53]

If clicking every segment is tedious, well, uhh... I really dunno how the gmaps API is with shift-clicking n'at...

probably doable manually... upon shift-click event, find previous element clicked on, then iterate through every intervening element (walk linked list or whatnot), and trigger some event in each element whose result is an update.

[Scott5114]

That sounds like it would be usable enough...

[Scott5114]

Okay, here's a refinement of the idea. You don't even need Google Maps to do this, it would be eminently doable (just PHP to fetch and generate the list of segments, and JavaScript for the rest), and while not perfect, it would be usable and speed up the process by a lot.



How it works is you have these little bars between each of the waypoint labels. Clicking a clinchbar toggles it from red to green and back. You hit submit and the server edits your clinch file for you when you hit submit. (You could still edit it manually if you so desired, to "clean up" the automatic segments added if needed.)

Also included are two "creature comforts" like "Clinch All" and "Interpolate". This second button looks for two given segments and marks everything in between them as clinched–in this example, if you OK/KS to K-23 as clinched, and I-70 to US-56_W as clinched and hit Interpolate, it would automatically mark everything in between the same as if you specified

Code Select Expand

KS US277 OK/KS US56_W The only problem is that it would not be usable if you have two separate sections of the highway clinched, since this would want to join them all up. In such a case, it would make more sense to download and edit the file manually.

This is doable and would result in more accessibility, especially among people who want to use the clinched highway site but are daunted by the textfile format (and would make small updates more feasible). Usership would probably increase due to this. It's not perfect, but it's better than what's there now.

[froggie]

The only problem is that it would not be usable if you have two separate sections of the highway clinched, since this would want to join them all up. In such a case, it would make more sense to download and edit the file manually.

Which is quite often the case, especially with the state lists and routes that multiplex a lot.

There's also the question of how much processing power this PHP of yours requires.  Tim's already running into that issue just with the sheer number of routes and points that are already active.  And the priority is to complete the rest of the states and provinces, which will tax the server more.

[SSOWorld]

It's kinda like he's caught between a rock and a hard place.  Tim and his team are doing a great deal of work just to get state routes listed on the site.  It may be a burden on a new user of the site to create a large list of highways clinched but the way I see it, it's easier to do a text file directly than to push the admins of the site to create an interface.  You're talking about added maintenance to the site if the interface breaks down or is compromised.  For those who have .list files - it does mean a little upkeep in case a highway's data is changed (believe me, changes have affected my file.) but these are small compared to any new system addition.  hence the beta testing of  new systems prior to their implementation.  Imagine how much work it took for Tim to completely revamp the site last year.  And the site isn't anyone's day job either.  All the collaborators - I assume - are volunteering time for it.

Plus, froggie's right.  Added php processing will likely tax whatever limits to the web server hosting he has.  I don't know if he has shared hosting, a VPS or a dedicated site (likely one of the former) but any of them will be burdened by the added user interface.