Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Processing interrupted connected routes #55

Open
michihdeu opened this issue Jul 17, 2017 · 12 comments
Open

Processing interrupted connected routes #55

michihdeu opened this issue Jul 17, 2017 · 12 comments

Comments

@michihdeu
Copy link
Contributor

http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=1888

I guess we need new system csv files or have to extend the _con.csv files.
However, a concept is needed first.

@jteresco
Copy link
Contributor

So are we talking about a whole new set of csv files that indicate when a route that should be treated as a single entity despite existing as multiple disconnected pieces?

@michihdeu
Copy link
Contributor Author

michihdeu commented Jul 17, 2017

We need a concept first. Maybe we can use _con.csv for it?

And yes, the routes should be treated "as one".

@jteresco
Copy link
Contributor

Thinking what the consequences would be to place these entries in the existing _con.csv files. In usai, for example, it might make sense to have the three segments of I-35 (broken up by the I-35E/W splits in Minnesota and Texas) as a single "connected route". Users would then see stats for a single I-35, which would be nice. But what bad things might happen.. hmm..

@rickmastfan67
Copy link

This would be nice for the multiple segments of I-74 (normal & 'Future') in NC.

@jteresco
Copy link
Contributor

Given our current setup, these need to be only with a system. But I'm willing to run an update (maybe onto the test DB) with a few examples (maybe I-35 and the I-74s) to see if there are any unintended consequences.

@michihdeu
Copy link
Contributor Author

True, it always the same system...

@jteresco
Copy link
Contributor

I think the idea in #87 would help here.

@michihdeu
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think the idea in #87 would help here.

Does it?

@jteresco
Copy link
Contributor

jteresco commented Nov 17, 2021

The ideas here seem potentially relevant for the IL 108 ferry split discussion:

https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=4160

Combining the ideas here with 6-field .list entries could remove one of the reasons people dislike the "split at ferry crossings" rule: it's still a single route so should only count as one route for maps and stats and should require only one .list entry.

@yakra
Copy link
Contributor

yakra commented Nov 17, 2021

That could be as simple as allowing DISCONNECTED_ROUTE to be marked FP.
Edit: Not that I think it's a good idea or that it should be pursued without a ton of forethought.

@jteresco
Copy link
Contributor

Definitely need a lot more thought and discussion before doing anything like this.

@michihdeu
Copy link
Contributor Author

michihdeu commented Nov 18, 2021

yep! Still a long way. We need a concept first!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants