My profile link : Don’t know where my Profile Link is. I’m a subscriber, Ron Byrd
Take a street that connects 2 perpindicular streets and has no nodes other than at the intersection of the streets at either end. When the perpindicular streets have been walked but not the connecting street, the connecting street is counted as complete when it hasn’t been walked/run. See 5th Ave in below image.
It’s likely much easier to calculate if your GPS hit a certain node (an intersection or something) rather than calculating if your GPS met every point along a street (let’s call it a segment).
Since you hit each of these points, it gave you credit for 5th Ave even though you hadn’t “really” completed it yet.
My understanding is that this is the intended behavior because:
It would be too costly/inefficient to calculate the completion of every single segment (say it checks each segment every 30 feet - for a mile long street, that’s a lot more points to check than just having nodes at curves/intersections).
GPS inconsistency would make it pretty annoying if it was calculated by segments instead… for example, you might not get credit for part of 17th St since the GPS registered you a little far off the road at one section.
So, this is intended behavior. This happens pretty rarely on hard mode, but I usually scan after every couple runs to make sure I’m not missing any streets, even if I did get credit for them.
I seem to remember a discussion on how to avoid this. The idea was that when two adjacent nodes are too far away from each other, an extra virtual node would be inserted by the application. In this case an extra (virtual) node in the middle of the block would not be touched, so street incomplete. This ”too far away” need to be decided, but maybe something like 20 meters?
I must respectfully disagree that its the intended behavior. Or, in other words, not what I expected. I just want an accurate list of streets completed, meaning all segments have been walked/run.
I too tend to review areas for segments not covered and actually go back, at some point, to complete them. Hard Mode or not, I think its a consistent flaw for the circumstance, although that’s conjecture on my part as I haven’t studied it close enough to be sure
Hans - Seems to me the virtual node idea would solve the problem. And how long a segment needs to be before inserting that virtual node shouldn’t be an issue (unless there are computer memory limitations of some sort). That is, all segments should have at least one node between intersections to insure its a valid completion.
You all may be interested in this topic in which the street vs node debate has been heavily discussed. I didn’t reread the whole thread but I know the “virtual node” has been discussed somewhere on the forums (either this thread or another).
In the end it’s all what you make of it. I have a few streets in the city I’m currently working on that are complete simply because I hit both ends while running to a different area. I plan on going back and running those streets anyway so it doesn’t bother me that my street count is temporarily inflated.
Yes, i agree with the last post. The lifemap should be leading (it is for me) and not the streetcount. Each can play this game how he/she/it wants. I think to remember that it is very difficult to implement this feature. But at the same time I get where this is coming from.