If you have any trouble registering for the forum, please email travmap@teresco.org for help.
Recent Posts
I should clarify the way I see the select-your-systems-to-show idea working. When you are on the TM site you pick the subset of systems you want to see maps and stats for (stored in cookies) and that's how you see everyone's maps and stats, not just your own. When someone else sees your maps and stats, they would be based on what the viewing user wants to show, not what each TM user wants.
Can we make the Select systems a separate category in the stats, like we do with active vs active+preview? Preview will go away, eventually, and we could adjust the column titles to something like "Defined" and "Defined+Select". People who want to get 100% on official, government-defined systems could use the left column as their benchmark, and those who are more interested in maximizing their total driving mileage could use the right column.
Oh, I'm sure you guys will keep finding new stuff to add.It isn't just vdeane either. I also care about my 100% clinches
Me too.Preview will go away, eventually
I don't think that preview will go away in the next ten years or even (much) later. Right now, more than 1/3 (192) of the systems in HB are in preview status. Feel free to prove me wrong by reviewing the systems quicker
It isn't just vdeane either. I also care about my 100% clinches
Preview will go away, eventually
The new road and bridge are to be open later this summer/fall.
It's a hidden point on NatRd, so concurrency detection will still work. This is because there's no intersection there, that section of MD 144 ends at the county line.How does it function with the .list tool? I can imagine cases where someone might have the MD 144 part but not the rest if, say, they went to clinch MD 144 and then turned around.
I agree in general that "it will cause someone to lose a 100% clinch" is not in and of itself a reason not to add something. But there are people who care about their 100% clinches, and it logically follows that if something is added that breaks one, they will feel obligated to go clinch it in order to get their 100% clinch back.Agreed, I'm largely just frustrated on that end. Especially after working so hard to get NY (and with me having plans to finally properly clinch the north end of US 11 in a few weeks, it's especially frustrating, as the goal posts seem to be moving right as I was finally about to reach them; the fact that I was stressing over the forecast when it first appeared and am still grieving not being able to see the eclipse does not help at all). And my mention of LI was indeed for that reason; other areas of NY, I can try to daytrip at some point (although the number of slots for a full 8 hour daytrip are limited, the number of remaining things that I would see outside of reclinches and stuff like this is diminishing, so it's less of a problem than it would have been a few years ago). Getting to the North Fork of Long Island realistically requires an overnight stay, in a part of a country where there isn't much else I'm interested in clinching that I don't already have. I actually enjoy Long Island, it's just that I have too many other places to go to find time without feeling like I'm "wasting" a trip on nearly nothing.
It isn't just vdeane either. I also care about my 100% clinches and would be lying if I said I wasn't relieved that usatr as it exists doesn't break any of them. Nonetheless, I already went through this problem with usanp. I had a 100% clinch of NJ that was broken by the addition of usanp routes in Delaware Water Gap NRA. You betcha I made a point of clinching those to get my 100% clinch back when I probably never would have otherwise. Fortunately this wasn't that big of a deal since they were routes that I regularly passed fairly near anyway so I didn't need to go that far out of my way for them. But, yes, the addition of something at the east end of Long Island would create a major headache for anyone who does not live in Long Island.
Can we make the Select systems a separate category in the stats, like we do with active vs active+preview? Preview will go away, eventually, and we could adjust the column titles to something like "Defined" and "Defined+Select". People who want to get 100% on official, government-defined systems could use the left column as their benchmark, and those who are more interested in maximizing their total driving mileage could use the right column. "Select" systems naturally will have more frequent changes, as those doing the selecting adjust their thinking on things they were on the fence about. Can't speak for Valerie or Anthony here, but personally, I find it somewhat easier to accept losing a 100% clinch due to a new state highway being built than I do due to an entirely new class of routes being added, especially when the criteria for inclusion is subjective.Yes, that's a good point. Construction happens (although not often in NY, so I might be overly used to things otherwise being stable). New systems or new things being added to "select" systems can feel like the goalposts shift and add frustration along the lines of "I could have easily clinched this when I was there clinching other things if I had known, now I need to go back to an area that's already well-traveled if I want everything". I've been trying to be more mindful of potential changes to what's in TM (not just things added to "select" systems but also points) in structuring my travels, but clearly it's still possible to be blindsided.
Please understand, I have nothing against what Si did by creating this set (which people have desired for quite some time). It's conceptually valid and a welcome addition to the site. But the discussion of what else might eventually be added causes me some stress, mostly from the extra work I'll need to do with maintaining poorly-signed and unclearly-defined routes in my regions.
A few quick thoughts:I actually have done this, although usually the examples are smaller (such as clinching a piece of Historic US 20 in NY when it was added before it was removed, or re-clinching NY 309 when the south end was adjusted and I couldn't remember whether I got the correct alignment or not; that trip also taught me that I really don't care about clinching reference routes aside from a few exceptions, and thankfully both were 2-3 hour semi-local trips, not 8+ hour long full daytrips). Although on a grand scale, CHM is the reason I came to care about clinching non-interstates.
- I agree that the New York Scenic Byways, if added, would make sense as something like usanysb, not part of usatr since they don't span multiple regions.
- The routes being poorly-defined would be a good reason not to add them. They seem well signed in the places I've seen them, but I haven't been on all that many. But if we'd have to be hunting for signs in person or on street view, that's not great. The spurs don't sound fun, either.
- Causing people to lose 100% clinches in regions is not a good reason not to add something. People have many reasons to plot their travels in TM. Yes, some want to see 100% come up in the stats. Others (like me) are more interested in tracking where I've been, and the more routes that make sense to be included, the happier I am. The "I swear, if you make me drive all the way out to far eastern Long Island again" comment actually worries me. I hope no one feels obligated to go anywhere they don't want to go just because a route is added to or is updated in this project.
