Skip to main content

Vote to verify - vote to remove

Comments

10 comments

  • 486peter

    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
  • Sofa Jockey

    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
  • Sofa Jockey

    A good point, Peter.

    0
  • Flora Marriott

    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
  • Lodge101

    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
  • mark

    I like the idea of having alternatives for different needs

    a) direct

    b) longer, but has some mitigating reason
    i) scenic,
    ii) perhaps brings you near a route from other nodes allowing you to ‘hack’ two routes together for nodes that don’t otherwise connect
    iii) accessibility
    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
  • mark

    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
  • Lodge101

    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
  • mark

    If the grading is good, they pick their route and…. Then see just that one.

    0
  • Sofa Jockey

    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.

Powered by Zendesk