Vote to verify - vote to remove
As routes are added, some to improve a current route that has issues for whatever reason and other that path a new route, there's a danger that the map will get clogged.
I suggest that the review process allows 3 options (not the current 2).
- Verify yes - the route is good enough to be a Slow Ways route.
- Verify no - the jury is out or perhaps there are issues.
- Remove route - another better route follows almost the same path.
Another way to address this is that when a route is verified, the same path is checked for earlier or broken iterations to be removed but that relies more on central admin resources.
In particular - allow the original author to edit or remove a route. I entered one yesterday but want to improve it (I used my GPX generated by the walk but it contains a major road crossing that is not safe) - it seems I have to upload a whole new on and file a negative review of the old one.1
A good point, Peter.0
I completely agree with this Peter. Like you, I’ve uploaded a new route but I’ve since seen a better way, and I don’t want to clog up the map with multiple routes for one section.0
I completely agree with Peter. I also realised that me adding a new route at this point in the process, with the site being new, was a bit premature. I think it might be better to wait until the current routes have at least some reviews. Is Slow Ways about getting from A to B safely rather than having 2 different ways to do it. If the route gets bad reviews perhaps then is the time to add an alternative?0
I've been trying for the last week to get a route deleted, not yet successfully.
We have to remember that the site is 'beta' but equally the current set-up is not really encouraging people to post, for fear that they will make a mistake, or have that mistake locked in, if made.1
I like the idea of having alternatives for different needs
b) longer, but has some mitigating reason
ii) perhaps brings you near a route from other nodes allowing you to ‘hack’ two routes together for nodes that don’t otherwise connect
iv) passes facilities en route
I think that the current system could be simply improved by
1) allowing the original poster to delete/amend for a period of time (a week?)
And more complex improvements:
2) running a check for ‘does this route exist’ (or has it been rejected previously)
3) running a check for ‘does this route overlap significantly with an existing route’ (if so, it might be listed as a ‘variation’ even if stored as a route in its own right).
It’s policy as to how you ultimately want to deal with such variations.
4) If a route is removed, it should somehow be flagged for the problem and future routes checked against these flags (i.e. HERE is private land, and routes HERE are problematic…. Perhaps requiring extra info ‘I am the landowner and am declaring this open access’)0
The key for me is the journey planner interface - i.e. quickly selecting the route by nodes, dragging the route by node, and then choosing which routes according to criteria (‘fastest’, ‘most off-road’, ‘most water’, ‘best rated’)…. Then, when a journey is picked, being able to click through each section quickly and manually override to tweak alternatives.0
Those are really good points Mark. I think your concept of making the route a variable based on its merit adds another dimension to the Slow Ways concept, however, I would be concerned that it would create too many routes. I am also interested to find out what map reading skills the users will need if given many alternatives.0
If the grading is good, they pick their route and…. Then see just that one.0
There's a difference between a dull but practical route and a broken one.
I'll give Maislo as an example (Maidenhead to Slough) which entirely follows a busy straight main road through a business park. The route works, it's accessible but my it's dull. But valid and verifyable.
It needs a second route along the river (which I'm working on).
But other routes have included sections through private roads and dead ends. I think they need clearing away once we have replacements.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.