Differences between revisions 13 and 14
Revision 13 as of 2002-02-01 03:45:05
Size: 2733
Editor: 12-224-247-122
Comment:
Revision 14 as of 2002-02-01 19:05:36
Size: 2856
Editor: pw
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 40: Line 40:

   I think someone just needs to make an executive decision, and yours is as good as mine. :-) So go for it. -- Adam.

This page is for discussion of maintaining the node maps at:

People:

Software Maintenance

Database Maintenance

  • BillHolmstrom can help sometimes

  • Others <-- You can volunteer here!

Field Verification

  • Let's go driving

Issues:

Node Naming/Taxonomy

I think we need to figure out a systematic way to name our nodes. I feel that NYC Wireless has done a good job with this, with the nodes listed by borough. --BillHolmstrom


I agree, oddly enough, I did this sometime yesterday for my Ashland nodes and was thinking the exact same thing. --ForrestEnglish


Since the node map database already has a field for group affiliation (PTP, NYC, BAWUG, etc), and groups are generally local/regional in scope, each group should determine how to list locations within their "territory." In New York, they categorize by borough first, then generally by street location. For Portland, I suggest using N, NE, NW, SW, SE for the closer-in areas, and community names (Vancouver, Gresham, etc.) for outer areas. After that, areas with thin node populations can list the node name, while thickly populated areas may need sub-areas before the node name. I believe we should avoid using street addresses in the node name. Examples:

  • SW: Downtown: Pioneer Courthouse Square
  • SE: Inner: Lucky Lab
  • NW: Old Town: Union Station
  • Vancouver: Esther Short Park

--BillHolmstrom

  • That sounds good to me Bill, you want to lead by example? ;) --AdamShand

    • I'm ready to get a start on it if there's a consensus it is the way to go... although I suppose it is easily changed later. --BillHolmstrom

      • I think someone just needs to make an executive decision, and yours is as good as mine. :-) So go for it. -- Adam.


  • I like the idea of two different views, an overall view, and a regional view. For the overall view I think something like this would be good..
    • Country : State : City : Region (Group)
    So for my node something like this:
    • USA : OR : Portland : SE (Personal Telco)
    And then when you get a listing of just the Personal Telco Nodes (or maybe it should be just per city/region instead of per node?):

    Hrm, on reviewing I'm not sure how much sense that actually makes. What might be nice though is if each of the stanza's (eg. country) could be clicked on for a complete listing of that area. If we standardize on region names then we could even do maps of regions which would be useful to download before leaving on a trip (to store for when you don't have net access). Thoughts? -- AdamShand

Other Issues


[CategoryCommunity] [CategoryPersonalTelco]

MapMaintenance (last edited 2012-03-09 10:28:06 by DanRasmussen)