|
|
I decided to turn them off by default to try it out. I'm still not 100% set on the colors or on whether it should be on by default. I'll need to figure out a way to convey that it can be turned on. I'll experiment with a few things.
|
|
|
Originally Posted by: eagle98mn  Ben, you are to fast and efficient for your own good! This kind of fast response sets a pretty high bar for future suggestions and requests. :) Well, someone else had requested it over a year ago, and I didn't get around to it. Having a second person suggest the exact same thing made me get a move on it. 
|
|
|
Ben, you are to fast and efficient for your own good! This kind of fast response sets a pretty high bar for future suggestions and requests. :) In all seriousness, this is hugely helpful to me. Thanks! I agree that I like the purple best if your goal is to make it visually pop off the map from a zoomed out perspective. If you want it to blend in more then the yellow and green are better. For my part, I like the purple. I wasn't considering multiple colors for different speeds in my initial request. I would have been just as happy with one color that consistently means "motor traffic allowed here." The map is already pretty colorful, so purple is probably one of your last unused colors - maybe use multiple shades of purple? Or just note speed restrictions as a note on the lake's pop-up menu once it is clicked on? Otherwise, a gray or tan? I'm just brainstorming now... I'm only noticing a small dropoff in speed so far. My internet connection is 75 mbps, so maybe that helps too. I can understand why you may want to make the data an "opt in" component to keep overall load times fast though. Maybe you'll need to display a message after a user registers, suggesting they customize their map. I only recently discovered I could create a personal "default" map, which has become pretty handy! Regardless your final decisions, this data is very handy. Thanks again!
|
|
|
I added the motor areas layer. I'm not set on the colors - the only one I really liked was the purple. If you have any suggestions instead of the yellow and green for the other two, let me know. Since there is a lot of data going into those layers, it makes that part of the map load quite a bit slower. I'm thinking of turning it off by default and then you can turn it on if you want. For now, though, it is on by default.
|
|
|
Yes, motors are allowed on the Canadian side all along there. It is part of La Verendrye Provincial Park, which allows motors. From what I've heard, there usually aren't too many motorboats, though I'm sure that depends on the time of year. The exception is Saganaga. Saganaga is partly in, partly out of the Quetico. The part within the Quetico does not allow motors.
|
|
|
Thanks for those links Ben. I hadn't found those maps yet and they immediately helped me visualize some areas I was unclear on. Their data is precisely what I am hoping can eventually be added to Paddle Planner.
Quick question - do you know if motor traffic is allowed on the Quetico side of any border lakes? The National Geographic maps show shading up to the border on lakes like North Fowl or Saganaga, but I can't tell if that is because the regulation changes at the border or if it is just the map's focus on the US side of the wilderness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a relatively new BWCAW explorer (three trips in the last three years), I find it difficult to remember which lakes allow motor boat traffic. Would it be possible to add an optional layer to the interactive map, similar to the PMAs and Burn Areas, that would show the approximate regions that allow motor traffic? Much like the burn areas, I want to be aware of motor traffic potential before I enter the wilderness, but I currently find myself cross-referencing Paddle Planner with other (inadequate) sites in an attempt to remember where motor traffic is allowed. It is particularly challenging on lakes like Seagull where part of the lake allows traffic, but the descriptions reference 3 Mile Island. In this case, not only do I need to identify the lake as allowing motor traffic, but also have to figure out where the boundary is on the lake in order to visualize how much motor traffic I may see. As a visual person, all I want is a map of the lake that is shaded where the motor traffic is allowed! This seems like a bit of data that would be a natural fit on the map. PS I do like that entry points are color-coded to provide a visual cue on entry lakes.
|
