andest01
commented
5 years ago If I understand you correctly, you're pointing to the fact that the Eastern half of Wisconsin has meager trout stream representation, and the fall/spring runs are significant enough to warrant consideration of their introduction into the TroutSpotr database. Is this a fair summary?
TroutSpotr is built almost exclusively from US state data. So in this case, I'm posting what Wisconsin has told me are its trout streams. I'd rather not get into the business of curating individual streams. If the state says this is a trout stream, then I'll catalog it. This is how MN, WI, and IA have been built (with the exception of "trap streams" - streams that watermark my data and help pinpoint copycats).
The wide exception was using NORWeST data to cover areas where state governments simply don't bother cataloging trout streams cuz they're all in the hills anyways. These are places like Montana, Colorado, and Idaho, though I think Idaho might actually have a regulations data set, which would then imply trout streams.
Lakes are another bridge I don't want to cross. Lakes could easily be visualized, not unlike publicly accessible land, but cataloging their use and regulations are... a new kettle of fish. Also, then people will want all lakes to be cataloged, which will push the payload size of each region well beyond the 600 kb compressed limit for smart phones. They'll also ask, "What about Smallmouth Bass?"
Once I spread my concentration too thin, and try to make it all things to all people, the app gets worse. This I believe: the moment an app starts to expand its use beyond a simple one-line thesis marks the moment the app begins to suck.
Don't let this post harsh the vibe. If you can find a data set of those streams, along with their regulations, then we can consider adding them to the database -- but understand that the blue line is a symbol of trust between the user and TroutSpotr. Trust is something that's gained in drops, and lost in buckets. If these streams are either dry or too warm in the summer, that rightfully damages the reputation of the data. Introducing false positives into the database is something to be avoided. Adding more verbiage to say "maybe you'll like this stream, but only at these specific times of the year" pushes the app towards wikipedia style editorializing, rather than a strict facts-first approach. It also adds a surprising amount of app-logic.
Every feature I make, and every feature I say no to, has to pass the filter: Does this feature help or harm the purpose of the app:
Help anglers find safe and legal opportunities when fishing for trout.
I'm going to create a new tag: data required. If you can produce trustworthy data, then I'll consider adding it - this would include lakes.
zacharyrpope
Just curious, is the scope here exclusive to native stream trout and not lake trout/salmon runs? Eastern Wisconsin can be pretty ridiculous (in a good way) in the fall with the lake runs. Is the thought not to include that use case? Used to live in Milwaukee and enjoyed the fall season out there along the coast...