Open tillwenke opened 8 months ago
Good idea. I d think off emphasizing the main spot (eg with a star) while leaving the others. You are right what we want is that it is made clear that not placing a new spot at the location that uniquely identifies a service area, really adds potentially misleading information. If you then still want to freely place your spot you are aware of its implications which makes us more certain that this spot exists for a reason.
How the spots are placed currently I assume that most users just added a new spot without intending and the above described thoughts in mind.
T: "like you wrote above sounds like a great way - one general spot for the location (marked e.g. with a star) and others that are intentionally at a certain spot."
R:"One main spot + common sense on site seems good to me, keep it simple."
=> make a toggle for merged/ all spots & track which is preferred by users
B: "I'd feel more comfortable with user suggestions, especially if we add a checkbox, "I've been here and can personally attest that these spots are one and the same" or something like that. Report function is a good idea :)" "I'd accept other mergers if 1) the map is manually checked and 2) both spots have comments and the comments are clearly reviews of the same spot. For a practical edge case, search for aire de berchem. There's a spot in the middle of the road between two gas stations. I might be convinced to drop requirement 2."
T: "Would it be possible to have both ways existing at the same time: e.g. if one adds a new spot to have it bound to a certain location (on-ramp, petrol, station, toll-station, service area,... ) or have it placed freely by option. While I get the desire to clean up and structure big amounts of data I oppose the way to limit and thus loose information in this process. Like service areas can have different spots(exits) for hitchhiking that should have have the option to be desribed and rated seperately."