Add a schema based on ATF4 guidance

acteng / atip

Active Travel Infrastructure Platform

https://acteng.github.io/atip/

Apache License 2.0

22 stars 4 forks source link

Add a schema based on ATF4 guidance #262

Closed dabreegster closed 1 year ago

dabreegster commented 1 year ago

A minimal take on #242. The UX of selecting one of 11 options is not nice, and if we wanted to visualize these categorically on the map, we'd need a discrete palette with 11 choices. Purpose of this is just to raise questions about how we should better collect this type of data. Screenshot from 2023-07-10 10-46-14 https://acteng.github.io/atip/atf4_schema/scheme.html?authority=Adur&schema=atf4 (fixed link)

robinlovelace-ate commented 1 year ago

See comments from #260 and apologies for confusion, commented on wrong PR I think (I thought it was a LOT of changes for adding new schema)!

dabreegster commented 1 year ago

@robinlovelace-ate , there are more attributes from Inspectorate that I was going to add here, based on the category chosen: Screenshot from 2023-07-11 10-48-21

Can we make the UI reactive, e.g. making the question "Average cycleway width (m)" If it's a route-related intervention?

Yes, but it's not in the table from Inspectorate. And I'm not exactly certain which categories here to apply it to.

Also, there is a many-to-many mapping between intervention types and geometry types I think. Could we incorporate that also at some stage?

As in, a crossing could be mapped as a point, line, or polygon? Agreed this is confusing; we've gotten feedback previously to that effect. Any suggested changes?

dabreegster commented 1 year ago

Pete, ready for review. I was going to add some questions from the table above -- I think each one just maps onto the types, in order (eg "Area-wide traffic management" would ask "Size of area improved for walking/cycling") but many of these are just derived from the geometry, or don't clearly map onto one geographic object drawn ("New junction treatement" and "Junctions treated" -- draw one object per junction?)

The intent is just to share for feedback and iterate

dabreegster commented 1 year ago

I added the complexity question, at least. Possibly we can derive that though

dabreegster commented 1 year ago

Thanks for the review! I'm just iterating on the GH workflow changes so the new gitignored files work in all the old branches, don't mind the spam of commits...

robinlovelace-ate commented 1 year ago

As in, a crossing could be mapped as a point, line, or polygon? Agreed this is confusing; we've gotten feedback previously to that effect. Any suggested changes?

I suggest crossings are points for now. Simplicity is good. Most crossings are points in our data I think. And we can change it later.