Status of Travel Mapping

[english si]

^^ As did I, I wanted green E roads and red A roads and what I got was black E/A roads (except south Wales - but not the north - has blueish clinched A roads until you zoom in, and then they become black)
http://tm.teresco.org/hbtest/mapviewt.php?rg=WLS&u=si404&colors=eure:rgb(0,128,0)rgb:(0,255,0);gbna:rgb(255,0,0)rgb:(128,0,0)

[Jim]

^^ As did I, I wanted green E roads and red A roads and what I got was black E/A roads (except south Wales - but not the north - has blueish clinched A roads until you zoom in, and then they become black)
http://tm.teresco.org/hbtest/mapviewt.php?rg=WLS&u=si404&colors=eure:rgb(0,128,0)rgb:(0,255,0);gbna:rgb(255,0,0)rgb:(128,0,0)

You need colons also between the two rgb specifications for each system.  That's how I parse them.  You can use any CSS-style color specification, so if you prefer the #ff0000 style that should work (though I have not tried).  When I added the colons, I see your map in red and green as you intended, but there is still some blue, because of a third system, gbnam, using its default blue coloring, being drawn atop some of the red and green.

[Jim]

Jim, could you please list the RGB values for the default colors for various types of roads? Other than to replace orange with something less fugly for my map printouts, I might just do mild tweaks from the defaults, but to make those tweaks it would help me to have the starting points. Also, is there a way to make certain route categories (such as unclinched routes) completely invisible?

Here's the JS code that sets the clinched and unclinched RGB values for the colors as assigned to systems in the systems.csv file.

Code Select Expand

var colorCodes = new Array();
colorCodes[0] = { name: "blue", unclinched: "rgb(100,100,255)", clinched: "rgb(0,0,255)" };
colorCodes[1] = { name: "brown", unclinched: "rgb(153,152,102)", clinched: "rgb(153,102,0)" };
colorCodes[2] = { name: "red", unclinched: "rgb(255,100,100)", clinched: "rgb(255,0,0)" };
colorCodes[3] = { name: "yellow", unclinched: "rgb(255,255,128)", clinched: "rgb(225,225,0)" };
colorCodes[4] = { name: "teal", unclinched: "rgb(100,200,200)", clinched: "rgb(0,200,200)" };
colorCodes[5] = { name: "green", unclinched: "rgb(100,255,100)", clinched: "rgb(0,255,0)" };
colorCodes[6] = { name: "magenta", unclinched: "rgb(255,100,255)", clinched: "rgb(255,0,255)" };


I think an option to leave unclinched out completely isn't hard, but is best done through a separate mechanism.  I could add something like "clinchedonly=1" as an additional query string parameter.

I know that for now adding these ugly and confusing QS parameters is a little awkward.  My hope is that by using that mechanism, however, it will be easier for someone to write a front end that generates the maps with all kinds of different options without worrying about how it all is done by the main map-drawing engine.

[Jim]

Re: one of Oscar's other comments.  If anyone knows of a set of map tiles that would show only borders and land vs. water without the other clutter that comes from the tiles we have available so far, I think that would be a great option, and might eliminate the need for us to manage our own country/region/water boundaries and generate the old CHM-style maps.  Of course, I'm happy to have the project support CHM-style maps also but it won't likely be a priority for me to work on myself.

[Jim]

I think an option to leave unclinched out completely isn't hard, but is best done through a separate mechanism.  I could add something like "clinchedonly=1" as an additional query string parameter.

Another possible mechanism here is to allow user-defined line thicknesses and/or opacities as well.  Right now both of those are project-wide values, but if it's of interest, I might be able to allow users to, say, make unclinched route segments have a width of 0 or an opacity at or near 0, rendering them invisible.  The down side of this approach is that the JS code to draw them all would still be produced and executed, whereas the "clinchedonly=1" would simply ignore them at the PHP level.  But maybe customizable thicknesses and opacities are generally useful anyway.

[michih]

I had expected down the road we'd need to go through the CHM exercise of (re)doing land and water boundaries, so we could create uncluttered user maps. Maybe we won't have to do that, and can just let the Google, Mapnik, etc. base maps take care of those boundaries for us.

Re: one of Oscar's other comments.  If anyone knows of a set of map tiles that would show only borders and land vs. water without the other clutter that comes from the tiles we have available so far, I think that would be a great option, and might eliminate the need for us to manage our own country/region/water boundaries and generate the old CHM-style maps.  Of course, I'm happy to have the project support CHM-style maps also but it won't likely be a priority for me to work on myself.

I also prefer having a "simple" map but I think we already have a good one, Google Satellite without labels .
Is it possible to preselect a map type via the url?

[Jim]

I also prefer having a "simple" map but I think we already have a good one, Google Satellite without labels .
Is it possible to preselect a map type via the url?

No, but that shouldn't be hard.  I'll put it on my list.

[michih]

Thanks. I also tried the colors and I think it's working fine - no bugs.

But I think it's not easy to use because one has to define colors for each system. If I'd like to have all "first class category" roads of all states in a specific color, I have to put all systems to the url...

[Jim]

But I think it's not easy to use because one has to define colors for each system. If I'd like to have all "first class category" roads of all states in a specific color, I have to put all systems to the url...

Makes sense.  It's not bad when looking at an individual state, province, or European country, but this is not a workable mechanism for, say, changing the colors of all state routes when viewing the entire US.

[SD Mapman]

But I think it's not easy to use because one has to define colors for each system. If I'd like to have all "first class category" roads of all states in a specific color, I have to put all systems to the url...

Makes sense.  It's not bad when looking at an individual state, province, or European country, but this is not a workable mechanism for, say, changing the colors of all state routes when viewing the entire US.

It is pretty neat, though. I just had the colors in the wrong places.
My example

[michih]

I used "first class category". I think categories already exist. There's tier 1 to 5........................................

[Jim]

I used "first class category". I think categories already exist. There's tier 1 to 5........................................

Right - in my post I meant that my current mechanism is unworkable, not that your suggestion would be.  I think this would actually be pretty simple the more I think of it.

[mapcat]

Re: one of Oscar's other comments.  If anyone knows of a set of map tiles that would show only borders and land vs. water without the other clutter that comes from the tiles we have available so far, I think that would be a great option, and might eliminate the need for us to manage our own country/region/water boundaries and generate the old CHM-style maps.  Of course, I'm happy to have the project support CHM-style maps also but it won't likely be a priority for me to work on myself.

I've been looking around and haven't found any that eliminate everything but the boundaries, but here's one that's close:

http://maps.skobbler.com/@44.9181393,-86.9238281,5/categorySearch

In "lite" mode everything is lightly shaded (grey or green) and the roads are all white. Looks a lot like Google's terrain maps (without the shaded relief).

I also prefer having a "simple" map but I think we already have a good one, Google Satellite without labels .

That one doesn't work well for me, since most of the time the areas I'm looking at have a lot of forest, which makes it difficult to see unclinched segments.

Also, could the user also have the option of making unclinched segments show up brighter than clinched segments? The new color options are awesome, but regardless of the colors chosen, the clinched segments are always brighter.

[Jim]

The Utah State Highways (system usaut) are now active in Travel Mapping.  Thanks to NickCPDX for all his work on this, and to everyone who helped to get them in shape.

Now the race is on for the next system to get ready.  Is it usanm?  usavt?  Maybe even usava, usain, usamt, or usaco?  Something in Europe?

I'll run one more update later tonight with any .list updates that come in over the next couple hours.

[Jim]

Also, could the user also have the option of making unclinched segments show up brighter than clinched segments? The new color options are awesome, but regardless of the colors chosen, the clinched segments are always brighter.

If I were to make the opacity user-configurable, that would do it.  Certainly doable

[vdeane]

The Utah State Highways (system usaut) are now active in Travel Mapping.  Thanks to NickCPDX for all his work on this, and to everyone who helped to get them in shape.

Now the race is on for the next system to get ready.  Is it usanm?  usavt?  Maybe even usava, usain, usamt, or usaco?  Something in Europe?

I'll run one more update later tonight with any .list updates that come in over the next couple hours.

I don't think usavt even has a thread here yet (unless I missed it).  It would be one I've been looking forward to for a long time though!

[oscar]

I don't think usavt even has a thread here yet (unless I missed it).  It would be one I've been looking forward to for a long time though!

It was discussed at (rather painful) length in a collaborators-only section of the old CHM forum.

I'm not sure further discussion here is needed, unless froggie thinks it useful. usavt seems really, really close to activation.

[mapcat]

Also, could the user also have the option of making unclinched segments show up brighter than clinched segments? The new color options are awesome, but regardless of the colors chosen, the clinched segments are always brighter.

If I were to make the opacity user-configurable, that would do it.  Certainly doable

Thanks. Seems that might solve Oscar's request above to make unclinched routes invisible, too.

[yakra]

I don't think usavt even has a thread here yet (unless I missed it).  It would be one I've been looking forward to for a long time though!

It was discussed at (rather painful) length in a collaborators-only section of the old CHM forum.

I'm not sure further discussion here is needed, unless froggie thinks it useful. usavt seems really, really close to activation.

As far as I'm concerned, it's just about ready to go. Though I did turn VT maintenance over to froggie, so it's his turf now. One caveat that I do remember though is that ISTR froggie saying somewhere there's been a proposal to revert VT100HisMor to VT100 proper, and make the bypass VT100Trk, I think. Not sure how far along that process is, if it is happening. So that may be in flux. That, and OSM imagery has improved enough to tweak the location of the VT100/VT100His junction.

I'd like to hear froggie weigh in on this topic.
I'll send him a PM in a bit.

[Jim]

I agree that usavt should be just about ready.  The only reason it never made it into CHM was the disagreement about the distinction between state maintained and town maintained portions.  I expect everyone still involved in the project is in agreement that the routes as plotted now are the ones that should be included.

[froggie]

Given that I peer-reviewed VT 2 years ago...assuming Eric made the agreed changes before he gave it back to me recently, it should be good to go.  I admit that I haven't looked at the temporary TM yet to verify...I'll try to get to that this weekend.

Regarding VT 100 in Morrisville, the change Eric alluded to has not happened yet.

[EDIT:]  Found at least one fix that's needed.

[Jim]

I used "first class category". I think categories already exist. There's tier 1 to 5........................................

Right - in my post I meant that my current mechanism is unworkable, not that your suggestion would be.  I think this would actually be pretty simple the more I think of it.

This was very simple to add.  You can now specify tier1:, tier2:, ... in your colors= query string parameter in addition to system names.  If you specify both that would apply to the same route, the system name takes precedence.  Here's an example URL:

http://tm.teresco.org/hbtest/mapviewt.php?rg=NY&u=terescoj&colors=tier1:rgb%280,0,255%29:rgb%28255,100,100%29;tier4:rgb%2850,50,50%29:rgb%280,0,0%29

Again, the %28 characters are really open parens and %29 close parens.

These will also soon work with the default "mapview.php" instead of just the testing version "mapviewt.php".

[michih]

Works fine (with "mapview.php")

http://tm.teresco.org/hbtest/mapview.php?rg=AUT,BEL,CHE,CZE,DEU,DNK,ESP,FRA,HUN,ITA,LUX,NLD,POL,ROU,SWE,AB,BC,ON,QC,IL,MI&u=michih&colors=tier1:rgb(255,69,0):rgb(124,252,0);tier2:rgb(255,69,0):rgb(124,252,0);tier3:rgb(255,105,180):rgb(50,205,50);tier4:rgb(255,105,180):rgb(50,205,50);tier5:rgb(255,105,180):rgb(50,205,50)

Greens = traveled; Reds = not yet traveled.

Unfortunately, the url is too long for the forum signature which is limited to 300 characters.

[Jim]

Unfortunately, the url is too long for the forum signature which is limited to 300 characters.

Which reminds me of another intended enhancement: a way to specify regions as groups like "all U.S. states", "all Canadian provinces", or "all countries in Europe".

[mapcat]

This was very simple to add.  You can now specify tier1:, tier2:, ... in your colors= query string parameter in addition to system names.

Nice! This is much simpler.

If you specify both that would apply to the same route, the system name takes precedence.

That is an especially useful feature--thanks for thinking of it. I tried it and it worked perfectly.