Using ATIP's sketch tool to map planned pipeline projects

[Robinlovelace]

Use case linked to #355, use ATIP to map this:

That is represented as tabular data as follows:

Source: https://ehq-production-europe.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/121c7f99e2ca08ddf0e56754ce808a7ce6383398/documents/attachments/000/002/781/original/LCWIP_-_Leeds.pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIA4KKNQAKICO37GBEP%2F20231012%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20231012T115351Z&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=f1dc1daa790bc5224cac0c65051e66a9b84899ff0725769f43017b90291f27c1

LCWIP_-_Leeds.pdf

Did a bit of a live demo and here it is as one entity with the sketch tool:

Source: https://acteng.github.io/atip/scheme.html?authority=West+Yorkshire+Combined+Authority&style=streets#13.69/53.81714/-1.51538

To get that exact same view and edit the file see the attached:
West Yorkshire Combined Authority_A61 to Oakwood.txt

Questions:

• What additional fields do we need, in addition to those in Pipeline attribute fields #355 (one we thought of was data source, I think it would be good to be able to upload a PDF for stability and in case local government websites changes, which they do)
• Should this be 3 sections or 1 (I think 3 sections, the level we have the data at, makes sense)
• Should we map both options (I guess yes and so did the person I was testing it with, leading to another questions)
  • Is it worth having an 'Option' category for the same route with different options, could be a question like "Does this route have multiple mapped options?" with default of No and if Yes you get to sketch 2 things with the same attributes. Important for capturing detail while avoiding double counting ambition.

[dabreegster]

What's our short-term data ingestion / storage solution? In lieu of a proper SchemeUpdater-like web platform, I'd suggest collecting submissions by email or Sharepoint or something else. Copy the raw files into an internal git repo, then we can run some daily scripts there to do automated validation and also record any manual QA problems. We can communicate back any problems, and use git to track version history per submission. We can also put any PDFs here.

(I'd normally not advocate for abusing git this way, but I don't have any nicer short-term ideas, and would love to improve on the ATF process. And file sizes are not likely to be a problem to keep in git.)

[dabreegster]

Good question about options -- we should ask at the next meeting (Monday I think). From that example where the routes overlap, but have a divergent section, I would recommend:

1. Map the red route first
2. Map just the unique green portion, and mark it as an alternative. If it's important for us to know what it's an alternative to, we could think about ways of doing that.
3. If useful, use the "split route" tool to denote common sections

[Robinlovelace]

Hadn't thought of the option of reducing effort by only mapping unique sections. Given that "3. Roundhay Road
(north) to Oakwood" is literally duplicated in the description it may make sense to only map it once from a UX perspective. Making it clear that it's part of 2 options is a good shout and I can imagine times when duplicating could be handy, e.g. when wanting to pull-out just Option 2. I sense a potential tradeoff between ease of data entry vs complexity. Something that using testing can help with I guess.