Intermediate phase in checking the routes...
I'm sure this has already been thought of, but just in case...
Dan explained that in Phase 1 the routes will be created and not necessarily by people who know the area. In Phase 2 they will be walked in real life to test them.
My suggestion is to add a Phase 1b.
Identify people from the volunteers who are experienced walkers in a particular area and ask them to walk the routes in their area virtually via the OS app and make suggestions or edits before anyone tries to walk the route IRL.
Routes could have a status: created, reviewed, locally verified, walked etc.
For example, in low lying areas there will be routes that appear suitable on paper (screen?) but in practice are flooded or too muddy for large parts of the year.
-
That's not a bad idea, Kevin - perhaps people already tend to gravitate to making routes in parts of the world familiar to them. It's one for Dan to consider, I think.
In the meantime, if people are missing the outdoors, you can use the virtual fly-through on OS Maps after you've created a route to check it out. It's not quite the same but adds a bit of virtual reality to the route-making!
And it's a bit easier on the legs than this one in real life :)
1 -
I chose a couple of routes near me, so in my case your guess was right :-) I also used the fly by, more for entertainment than practical value.
0 -
I agree, especially if routes you dont know the area. Especially in towns, I have noticed in Cheltenham OS do not show paths through parks.
There could be a problem as when I looked at routes created by others the OS ref will not work as they have been created as private routes, as required by the project.
0 -
Good point John. I kept my routes private while I worked on them. Then I switched them to public (by re-saving then and changing the switch) before sharing them on the SWays spreadsheet. I assumed that would let other people look at what I had done.
Also right about parks. I did the route from Cheltenham to Northleach, which was dumb as my first try as it is a problem route, few roads up the escarpment onto the Cotswolds and few paths. I used some paths out of Cheltenham only a local would know with the worry that other locals would know better shortcuts than me!
0 -
Kevin, I thought the training said we didn't want to make them public so they can all be released at once to get an impact. I guess it can be saved public with a different name, but then we would need to know what that was.
Yes I am just doing Cheltenham to Cockelford (a bizarre choice of a tiny hamlet?) and had 2 attempts as I discovered another route with less roads, but of course has to climb a hill out of Cheltenham.
0 -
Ah, yes, well remembered. I forgot about the all at once idea. I will reset them to private.
I can also imagine that Dan is thinking oh no, they're off into discussing the right route across a park when I am trying to get thousands of routes roughly right across the country ≤G>
2 -
Further to Kevin's original post, it might be a good idea for the organisers to collate a virtual panel of local knowledge experts for each region or county. Then specific queries could be fielded to them. For example, the attached screenshot shows a path where there may or may not be a river crossing. I'm pretty sure in this case that there isn't one, but it would be great if a local could tell me for sure.
0 -
I like your suggestion Kevin about "created, reviewed, locally verified, walked etc." or similar.
My ambition is that every Slow Way will have its own web page in the future... and that every Slow Way can then have multiple routes. Some faster, slower, easier, harder, more trees, more pubs or whatever.... people would then be able to pick the best route to complete the Slow Way.. and also it would remove the need to micro-manage the politics of 6000 routes.
So, for each of these routes within a Slow Way we could have different levels of verification, similar to the ones you've suggested?
0 -
[My ambition is that every Slow Way will have its own web page in the future... and that every Slow Way can then have multiple routes. Some faster, slower, easier, harder, more trees, more pubs or whatever.... people would then be able to pick the best route to complete the Slow Way.. and also it would remove the need to micro-manage the politics of 6000 routes.]
I'd forgotten the adage "where there are people there are politics". Now you say it I can see there could be differences of opinion over which is the 'One True Way'? It makes sense to allow, to encourage, multiple routes, and thus avoid disagreements.
I am assuming when you say each Way will have its own webpage, you mean a dynamic page. That is a standard page template is populated with information taken from a database holding data on each Way. There's an interesting challenge for a data designer in how to architect that underlying database. I guess OS has such people.
[So, for each of these routes within a Slow Way, we could have different levels of verification, similar to the ones you've suggested?]
Yes. With my OCD hat on I would want them to be sequential, but I'm not sure that would be always possible. Here is a more fleshed out example:
1. Identified
As a required Way, you've already done this for the south-west.
2. In progress
Chosen by a volunteer in the master spreadsheet, their name is against it.
3. Draft complete
The volunteer has produced a route and submitted it. To be 'Draft Complete' it must have a) the master spreadsheet form b) an OS URL and c) gpx file
4. Reviewed by the central team
Someone centrally (?) has checked the route has the right name, has a), b) and c) as above, actual goes from start to finish locations (!), is not obviously unsuitable (quite how you 'reject' a route I'm not sure, maybe you don't it just ends up being edited out of recognition :-) and whatever other checks are needed.
5. Reviewed by the local team
I'll think about this some more. Who is the local team? How many would be needed? How do they edit? Do they do it unilaterally or just via suggestions? My gut feel is that in the spirit of the endeavour they make a list of suggestions to the creator (this also avoids the need to actually edit the route).
6. Walked
There will be so many routes I think the majority will be walked by Slow Ways volunteers who happen to be locals. This then allows them to feedback to the creator, who revises again, even if only to add notes.
7. Published
The Way has completed the initial process and is public.
I don't know that this is the right progression/status/process, but discussing it will flush out some interesting ideas/questions. For example, at what stage in the above should the OS Slow Ways app be able to suggest a Way to a user?
Last thought. I wonder if the project needs (would benefit from) something more functionally rich than Zendesk, something more like Teams or Slack. I do like Zendesk (I was an early adopter ;-) . Um, maybe overthinking it...
0 -
I think the set up we have is good enough for this phase. Phase 2 can only go ahead with a site put together especially for the project and managing all the aspects of each of the Ways and Routes.
I like your flow of thinking.
I'm not sure there needs to be a "local team" more that there needs to be people who are contributing to that locality... People contributing on the ground is more important than where they are from?
0 -
I think the set up we have is good enough for this phase. Phase 2 can only go ahead with a site put together especially for the project and managing all the aspects of each of the Ways and Routes.
Yes, agreed. I am guilty of getting ahead of myself :-)
I like your flow of thinking. I'm not sure there needs to be a "local team" more that there needs to be people who are contributing to that locality... People contributing on the ground is more important than where they are from?
Um, maybe semantics. I wasn't thinking of a group who can meet in a local pub, I was thinking of people who know that location, which I think is what you are saying. What is the collective noun for " people who are contributing to that locality ".
0 -
We need all the foresight we can get in this project! The more we can get ahead of ourselves without losing ourselves the better - so thank you.
Yup. Cool. On the same page about local groups then. I just want to avoid anything that resembles groups being territorial.
Where this is going is for each Slow Way to have a page... and for each page to have multiple routes... and for each Slow Way and page to have its own "community" of some kind?
0 -
Yep... though experience of forums etc suggests you might (though it may feel heavy handed at this stage) end up with a moderator for each Slow Way. Might be worth looking at the way Wiki's are structured - I'll see if there is an intro to the way Wikipedia is managed (tho' maybe there is another user here who already knows ! )
PS - as I am new to this I am pondering how it works/will work as I find it interesting. I appreciate that I will seem to be blundering around to those who have done such a good job of getting it to this stage. Apologies in advance if I am painful :-)
0 -
Not at all.
And yes, a wiki could be perfect... but in a way that works with OS/Maps.
0 -
About checking and local Groups, I assume you have thought about discussions with Ramblers, U3A and other walking fraternities and those associated with walking apps like View Ranger, Map my Walk etc ?
I guess many of your "volunteers" are associated with one or more of these groups!
0 -
Hi Eric, you are right that there is lots of overlap.
I met with Rambler's policy team at HQ over a year ago to explain the project to them and the person who leads "Don't Loose Your Way" is helping and attended the Slow Ways hack day in February.
Otherwise, I think when Phase 2 is ready to go... the platform that means that we can effectively test the routes... I think that will be the best time to engage with wider networks. As you say, many are represented inside the project un/officially anyway.
Collaboration is king/queen.
0 -
There are a lot of local rambling clubs in addition to Ramblers. As a member of Stroud Rambling club I am sure we will have people willing to test local routes.
Is there a project summary I can use to show/discuss/circulate at the next virtual meeting. Short and sweet as a starter then updates as he project progresses. Thanks
0 -
Seems like a good idea especially as we can all only walk in our local areas at the mo. I was not in the group that covers the area I live and like a previous response had a play with the 'fly by' on OS. I am sure that people with local knowledge could help fine tune some routes before getting to the actual walking phase if that's considered helpful. I'm in a couple of walking groups that cover Lancs/Ches/Yorks/NE Wales so am sure we could also help doing route testing.
0 -
Picking footpaths off a map is no guarantee that they will be usable. Several years ago Ramblers did a survey and gave details how well footpaths were maintained in different counties. I remember at that time many footpaths in Herefordshire were not in a good state.
Another thing to bear in mind is that some paths may be OK at some times of year and not others. Some paths on the Black Mountains are hard to find when the hillside is covered with bracken. Tracks on the Wiltshire Downs (e.g. the Ridgeway) can become very muddy if they are well used by horses and/or four wheel drives.
0 -
In opening this thread, Kevin raised the possibility of a phase 1b. The subsequent discussion has then been mainly about testing etc of the routes Picked and Shared by those who have worked on routes in Phase 1.
The 'gap' I find myself coming back to each time I look through the Community threads is that of Alternative routes - the 'A', 'B' etc discussed by Dan in his training videos. I may have missed something, but it appears to me that the only person able to construct and submit an Alternative route would be the originating 'Picker'? No-one else can know that an alternative is desireable - we don't know which route has been selected as the prime one.
My reasoning is that only the Picker can see what has been submitted to link two settlements etc. There may be some very sensible alternatives for some routes, and there might be major issues preventing a map-based route from being viable. As only the Picker knows where the route goes, the scope or need for alternatives will not become apparent until the routes are published all together.
I wonder then - is there some merit in building in a period of 'peer review' before going into Phase 2, when signed-up Slow Walk volunteers could view the routes on a read-only basis for a defined period, and have a way of flagging up any significant issues?
If such a review throws up problems which can be addressed inhouse, it would be better than risking credibility by publishing routes which are 'non-starters'. Perhaps Corvid 19 has provided time for such an additional step?
My apologies if this has already been aired, but I have looked through the Community forum to see if I have missed talk of how to identify whether a Route B etc would be beneficial. Using Dan's example, I don't have any way of knowing how many routes follow canals!
0 -
Good points Peter.
I was thinking similar thoughts when I suggested a process step of local review of routes before being walked, so we are on the same page 🙂
0 -
If there is considered to be some value in a period of review, it occurred to me that we would only want to have the important issues flagged up, so some sort of 'Traffic light' system might be needed. Not being a poet, this is the best I can do:
RED: Replacement Route required, or radical rectivation prior to release. (Hopefully <10% would be in this category)
AMBER: Alternatives appropriate, and achieveable. (Where existing route has acute issues, and alternative easily accommodated in timescale)
GREEN: Generally good/great. (Hopefully the majority!)
0 -
That looks like a very functional plan, Peter, but I would add a fourth category (YELLOW ?) which would be “minor issues or adjustments required. Unless this would be considered likely to overcomplicate things ?
I’m wondering to what extent the originator of the route will be involved in the discussion ? It occurs to me that the originator will often have settled on a particular route after rejecting various other options for reasons which may not be immediately obvious to others, including to those who are ground-testing it. For instance, several of my routes ended up looking like an odd choice on the map because I had to route it via the only safe crossing of a dual carriageway. I’m sure there would be many other examples. Will there be a dialogue between originator and testers ?
On the other hand, route revision does clearly need to be a democratic exercise, without originators becoming too overprotective of their ‘babies’. I’m sure Dan will have put some thought into how this will be moderated.
0 -
Hi Peter. Thanks for raising that.
In Phase 1 when we are working off spreadsheets it's really all about getting a first draft done - with the priority on being to create the A routes. This is intentional... or I know the Kites would still be creating lots of routes in the South West and would have not moved on! Phase 1 and Google Docs are not really best placed to have multiple alternatives... so...
Phase 2 will be used, along with a proper web platform, to allow multiple routes to be made for some Slow Ways. Some will be good, some bad, some brilliant, some wrong!
I'm reluctant to have a peer review between phase 1 and 2... there will be nearly 7,000 routes and I think that peer reviewing all of those in advance would be hard work and not necessarily desirable.
On the other had, in Phase 2, we can use the power of the crowd to review routes before going and testing them... and even suggest alternatives before testing them. I think that will create lighter and more engaging flow with the project. There will be a continual process of review for all the routes once it's all live.
How does that sound?
If agreed.... for Phase 2... it would be great to think about the different ways a route could be reviewed/reported on and how.
0 -
Hi Peter and David, just to say that I'm reflecting on the process... and how the suggestion of the peer-review phase could be done on the Phase 2 platform before going live to a wider audience for the main testing etc.
But to your point David, like I think I said on the webinar, I'm not imagining the designs for routes being edited and negotiated over. That would be far too complex at this scale. Instead, people should be able to add new and better routes on top of older ones. That way there is a history of route ideas and the best ones could be verified or rated in different ways. Can you see that working?
0 -
Thanks for the two posts setting out your thoughts Dan – I can understand you not wanting to introduce a new phase, but definitely agree that “... in Phase 2, we can use the power of the crowd to review routes before going and testing them... and even suggest alternatives before testing them.”
Taking into account David’s comments and yours, it would obviously be important not to set off a chain of ‘negotiations’ over choices which were made by the originator (much better term than my ‘Pickers’!). To help avoid this, perhaps it will be important to specify that the initial review must not be simply map based. As David says, the originator will already have mulled over the information discernible from the maps and other online resources. The review needs to bring other dimensions into play.
The initial extra dimension might be Slow Ways volunteers’ personal knowledge of a route, which makes them want to raise a red flag? This flag mustn’t be waved just because someone prefers to use a different track etc, it needs to be limited to saying that ‘The route as described is not viable” – with full explanation/reasons of course.
The red flag should not be used where there are temporary issues (tidal, seasonal etc) – these are reasons for creating alternative routes, not pulling/replacing the original.
I have some thoughts on how this might operate within the constraints of the Google spreadsheet and I will jot these out for you to think about.
0 -
I like to keep things simple and have not re read all the above threads but I agree a peer review for 7000 routes is not practical. The routes have been picked good or bad. Therefore we should prove these before adding alternatives. If bad then an alternative can be put forward. Testing would be best by locals with their knowledge, who could look before walking and try to stick to the choosen route, Any issues or diversion being suggested.
Not sure how this would work though. Would the revision go back to the originator or just be added as an alternative working solution. Then does the original get deleted as not workable. Maybe Dan has a method in mind. Does it matter if there are 4 routes to get from A to B so long as they all work.
Once there is an original route other alternatives can be added.This is not meant to be terratorial but local knowledge will give a working start.
The other point is how is this managed and by who.
0 -
Let's pivot the conversation slightly for a moment and think of this from the perspective of inclusivity/accessibility (or what I think we should call doability).
For good reason, some routes may have two or three options entirely around the issue of doability. This would relate to both the people walking the route as well as the route itself.
This means that straight away we have good reason to have multiple options for a route.
I think we should avoid negotiation and revision and focus more on improved builds.
The question then in my mind is about verifying the quality of routes and making sure that the "best" one(s) are surfaced to the top. Weak routes would sink to the bottom or could even be flagged to be removed because they are wrong or bad in some way.
So, for me, the review process should be around a range of factors that someone at a desk or on a route could report on.
I'm personally less concerned about the number of routes within a Slow Way, as long as we can easily find the "best" route. And maybe by some magic in the future, some heat mapping could be used to overlay and create a combined suggested route.
How does that sound?
We would need to be able to flag routes for quality but also score them on a range of variables.. but what should they be? Maybe this colour coding and...??
0 -
Agree with your comments but still a bit unsure as to who will manage the process or how it will work in practice
0 -
We would need to be able to flag routes for quality but also score them on a range of variables.. but what should they be? Maybe this colour coding and...??
You'd need to flag a set of properties for a route that let you filter out those that had negatives:
- Steep ascents
- No rest stops
- Road sections without pavement
- Unsuitable for wheelchairs
- Not 'all season'
- Fences/stiles
Also select in those with positives:
- Most direct route
- Regular rest stops
- All off-road
- Level route
- Suitable for wheelchairs
- Fully paved route
The question then in my mind is about verifying the quality of routes and making sure that the "best" one(s) are surfaced to the top. Weak routes would sink to the bottom or could even be flagged to be removed because they are wrong or bad in some way.
I'm trying to imagine how this would work. I appreciate you are trying to avoid a hierarchy that judges, edits, selects etc. but I suspect you're trading inclusivity for effectiveness/practicality/efficiency.
Let's say there were 4 routes between Middlesbrough and Stockton. If I am local chances are I already know the area, so I won't turn to an OS app to find my way. If not local, how do I know which of the 4 to choose? Once the routes have been used many times and one has 5 stars and the other 2 stars, then there is my answer*
Before that ideal state you'd need to use filters as above. That works I think, but only if the route author has sufficient detail to set the filters. Some earlier posters have pointed out that likely needs local knowledge, and back you get to some kind of local expertise to at least annotate routes. Personally, I'd prefer fewer routes but ones that local walkers had edited, revised, tested and commented on.
0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
34 comments