Trailforks.com Bug Reports

PB Forum :: Trailforks Feedback
Trailforks.com Bug Reports
Author Message
flag canadaka
Mod O+
Posted: Mar 7, 2016 at 13:40 Quote
I approved it.
Still haven't looked into the ridelog yet, i have it "starred" in my inbox for followup Wink
flag schillingsworth
Posted: Mar 10, 2016 at 5:27 Quote
canadaka wrote:
I approved it.
Still haven't looked into the ridelog yet, i have it "starred" in my inbox for followup Wink

Re: Canyon of Fools Upper

It still shows as a pending revision & I still get the following: 'Message: You do not have access to approve this revision'
flag todd
Mod O+
Posted: Mar 10, 2016 at 8:22 Quote
Nice description, I confirmed it. I also tested it on a browser without being logged in and your description shows up nicely.
flag 1partatatime
Posted: Mar 24, 2016 at 22:11 Quote
Elevation data seems really off.

http://www.trailforks.com/ridelog/view/399165/

Strava, mind you on an iPhone, was 380m
Trailforks lists it as 628m

An unmapped zone so it isn't linking to anything.

I've noticed others this way, but I figured it was from local trails I've edited by dragging points.

Thoughts?
flag canadaka
Mod O+
Posted: Mar 25, 2016 at 0:36 Quote
Crapalier wrote:
Elevation data seems really off.

http://www.trailforks.com/ridelog/view/399165/

Strava, mind you on an iPhone, was 380m
Trailforks lists it as 628m

An unmapped zone so it isn't linking to anything.

I've noticed others this way, but I figured it was from local trails I've edited by dragging points.

Thoughts?

You take the same raw recording and upload it to 5 different map/tracker sites and you will get 5 different sets of numbers. All depends on how each site decides to calculate it.

Strava says they use the raw GPS data ONLY if the device contains a barometric altimeter, otherwise they through it out and use their own elevation data. Which is probably the same data we use.
https://support.strava.com/hc/en-us/articles/216919447-Elevation-for-Your-Activity

On trailforks, if you upload a ridelog manually, I usually toss out the elevation data and use data from google. But if your ridelog is coming from Strava, then I use their data. Now Strava says then run the data through some filters to smooth it out, I don't currently do this. So that could be the source of the difference. I'm counting the small ups and downs more then they are.

Now Strava is mainly focused on road cycling, just so happens mnt bikers caught onto using it. But they don't seem to focus on us much. In their FAQ they state:

"Elevation data on Strava is smoothed to take out noise— we have a 'threshold' where climbing needs to occur consistently for more than 10 meters before it is added to the total elevation gain. If we did not have this threshold, the elevation numbers would be inflated for longer activities. This gain threshold applies for both rides and runs."

10 meters! A lot of mountian bike trails have a lot of ups and downs that can occurs in the space of 10 vertical meters. So for road cycling, this is fine, for mnt biking, i think its too much smoothing and the elevation gain numbers on Strava are probably on the low side. With that said, if I revert to recalculating the elvation data for a gps track based on an elevaiton database, usually its only accurate to 10m.

Lots of Strava users talking about there data being different compared to Garmins site.
https://support.strava.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/208861127-Why-such-different-elevation-corrections-same-route-logg-1790m-2615m-3468m-elev-gain-

Strava has a lot of resources, so i'm sure they do a better job at filtering the data and compiling their own elevation database to use as a backup. We use Google's elevation API currently.

What I'm not 100% sure about is if the data I get from the Strava API that is sued for the Trailforks ridelgos, is the raw user data, or data after its gone through Strava's filters. It appears its the raw user data.
flag 1partatatime
Posted: Mar 25, 2016 at 6:53 Quote
F*&king Strava Smile

I will just ride my bike.
flag EdmontonMountainBikeAlliance
Posted: Mar 27, 2016 at 20:22 Quote
I just tried to do a bulk trail report for http://www.trailforks.com/region/edmonton/ but because there is over 100 trails it only selected the first 100 for the update.
How can I update the entire region?
flag 1partatatime
Posted: Mar 28, 2016 at 9:46 Quote
I've been pouring over the maps in the area lately, trying to get them current and I'm noticing things.
The basemap. Where is it pulling its info from? It is almost as though it is using ridelogs from Trailforks to generate trail lines where no online source of a trail actually exists. Is this possible?
I don't see it for the 'secret areas' in our region, but when going through areas like the Three Blind Mice, Skaha Bluffs, etc.. I see the trails that aren't even mapped (as they are local lines).
I am not talking about the topo lines, but the grey "there is actually a trail here, but we aren't mapping it" lines.

http://www.trailforks.com/region/three-blind-mice/

Where did the grey lines come from
flag canadaka
Mod O+
Posted: Mar 29, 2016 at 10:56 Quote
Crapalier wrote:
I've been pouring over the maps in the area lately, trying to get them current and I'm noticing things.
The basemap. Where is it pulling its info from? It is almost as though it is using ridelogs from Trailforks to generate trail lines where no online source of a trail actually exists. Is this possible?
I don't see it for the 'secret areas' in our region, but when going through areas like the Three Blind Mice, Skaha Bluffs, etc.. I see the trails that aren't even mapped (as they are local lines).
I am not talking about the topo lines, but the grey "there is actually a trail here, but we aren't mapping it" lines.

This is our new custom basemap we created ourselves. Most of the background data like roads comes from OpenStreetMap. So with the previous Google basemap and with OSM, there is the issue of trails on the basemap underlapping our coloured trails on Trailforks, looks messy. With google we had no control. With our new basemap sourced from OSM data we can filter out the lines we won't want, based on OSM tags. Problem is with OSM or Google there is very little quality control and many tracks are added with no tagging, inproper tagging, or very inaccurate data. There is also no control, oversight or approval process, so often illegal trails are posted (unlick Trailforks which puts in systems for all this).

So it seems a OSM user named emilyeros added a lot of the tracks on OSM for Three Blind Mice 8 months ago, but added NO tagging, to specify what type of track it is, and what users can use it. Not even names were added! So at least with OSM compared to our old Google source, anyone can go into OSM and edit the tracks to add some tags.

For Trailforks purposes we want to show OSM tracks that are hiking trails or dirt roads, to help with navigation. But we hide tracks that are tagged as a mountain bike trail from the basemap, since we draw our own trails on-top.

Luckily OSM has a very nice online editor to make quick tag changes. And I create a link to this on region pages under the map (if you are a region admin).

photo

For tracks to be designated as a mountain bike trail and thus removed from the Trailforks basemap set the following tags
highway=cycleway
bicycle=designated

For a hiking trail that shouldnt have bikes
highway=footway or path
bicycle=no
foot=yes

For a track that shouldn't be public at all, you will have to delete off OSM. But its an open wiki, so anyone can reverse your deletion or add it again! Its a free for all,something we tried hard to avoid with Trailforks. But we need to source background road data from somewhere, at least with OSM its easier to make changes like this compared to Google.

What we can also do is match the OSM WAY ID of hidden trails and filter those out from the basemap, that way you don't need to delete it from OSM and no matter what happens to it on OSM, it will be removed from the TF basemap. So to do this you would add the trail on Trailforks as a hidden trail, and on the trail form there is a field named "OSM way ID#" You would have to find this trails corresponding way on OSM and enter the ID here. Then when we generate our basemap we will check for any wayIDs on hidden trails and exclude those ways from our basemap.

Also note any change you make to OSM won't appear on the Trailforks basemap for several weeks, because we do a lot of caching of our tiles. In the future we will have a system to request the refresh of tiles in your region on-demand.

We will be creating an article in the coming month or 2 about how to best edit OSM to best work with Trailforks.

The basemap is also new, we are still tweaking it. We want to show hiking trails for navigation, and in our test areas the tracks were tagged fairly well. But if we find world-wide the tagging to be very poor, we may have to tighten what we allow through on the basemap. SO for example all the Three Blind Mice area tracks have no tags. Maybe we only show hiking trails IF they are at lest tagged with "foot=yes".
flag Soulseller
Posted: Mar 30, 2016 at 0:29 Quote
I tried to make a route and noticed that you can route after some OSM roads but not all. E.g. you can route after roads with OSM tag primary and residential but not track, path or unclassified. Is it supposed to be like this?

Another thing I noticed is that when a trail runs along a OSM road it will be cut into very small pieces in the route function. This makes it impossible to use the add by trail option since the pieces are too small to pick.
flag Soulseller
Posted: Mar 30, 2016 at 2:01 Quote
It seems like the linking of photos and videos to trails is made by name only, i.e. it's not unique. I don't think this is a very good idea, it should be a unique reference. I have already had several trails that got a lot of videos and photos that's actually belongs to other trails that has the same names.

I have solved it by renaming my trail but obviously it's not how it should work.
flag canadaka
Mod O+
Posted: Mar 30, 2016 at 20:42 Quote
Soulseller wrote:
It seems like the linking of photos and videos to trails is made by name only, i.e. it's not unique. I don't think this is a very good idea, it should be a unique reference. I have already had several trails that got a lot of videos and photos that's actually belongs to other trails that has the same names.

I have solved it by renaming my trail but obviously it's not how it should work.

There are several ways photos are auto matched. first by GEO location. Unfortunately most photos don't have this. SO next the trial name in the old photo field is used. But there are restrictions, the photo must be in the same country & province as the trail. So if your trail has the same name as one in South Africa, you won't get photos from there auto added to it. But if there are other trails with the same name in your region, you can get false matches.

You can "flag" any photos that are wrong and we will remove them. Or if there is A LOT, let me know the trails and I will use our special mod tools to remove them all at once.

It could be that the matching is too liberal in areas outside US & Canada, I may have to restrict it so the photo has the same city as the trail as well.
flag canadaka
Mod O+
Posted: Mar 30, 2016 at 20:46 Quote
Soulseller wrote:
I tried to make a route and noticed that you can route after some OSM roads but not all. E.g. you can route after roads with OSM tag primary and residential but not track, path or unclassified. Is it supposed to be like this?

Another thing I noticed is that when a trail runs along a OSM road it will be cut into very small pieces in the route function. This makes it impossible to use the add by trail option since the pieces are too small to pick.

I am still working on the routing along roads (from OSM), that's why I haven't announced it. There is A LOT of road data, and it takes a long time to process, so I've been fairly restrictive to what types of roads I import to allow routing along. Currently only these types are used:
highway IN ('trunk','primary','residential','secondary','tertiary','service')

But I'm working on a new method which will be greatly faster in processing the data, so I can handle more data. So I will add some more types, including logging roads and probably unclassified.

More details about the new routing features will be announced soon.
flag Soulseller
Posted: Mar 30, 2016 at 23:23 Quote
canadaka wrote:
Soulseller wrote:
I tried to make a route and noticed that you can route after some OSM roads but not all. E.g. you can route after roads with OSM tag primary and residential but not track, path or unclassified. Is it supposed to be like this?

Another thing I noticed is that when a trail runs along a OSM road it will be cut into very small pieces in the route function. This makes it impossible to use the add by trail option since the pieces are too small to pick.

I am still working on the routing along roads (from OSM), that's why I haven't announced it. There is A LOT of road data, and it takes a long time to process, so I've been fairly restrictive to what types of roads I import to allow routing along. Currently only these types are used:
highway IN ('trunk','primary','residential','secondary','tertiary','service')

But I'm working on a new method which will be greatly faster in processing the data, so I can handle more data. So I will add some more types, including logging roads and probably unclassified.

More details about the new routing features will be announced soon.


It would be great if you added unclassified also as this is how we tag small gravel roads (at least in Sweden) and there is a lot of them in the woods here. So far I have added the gravel roads as access trails but it would be be neat to not have to do that.
flag canadaka
Mod O+
Posted: Mar 31, 2016 at 19:23 Quote
Soulseller wrote:
So far I have added the gravel roads as access trails but it would be be neat to not have to do that.

In general if a gravel road is used as a main access route to get to the mountain bike trails, we still add it to Trailforks as a purple access trail. I then check all the OSM roads in the region and remove those that are a duplicate of any of these access roads.

But it's really upto each region to decide. If for instance it might be useful to do trail reports on an access trail, that's another reason to add it to TF.

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.018251
Mobile Version of Website