trail map

[Rev09]

Ha ha!

I voted for number three. We were on a trip to the north this past weekend and had to call a few different clubs a number of times because of what the online map kept showing...made us sweat a few times when trails that were open becamse closed....go back to the old style or figure it out!

[revrnd]

go back to the old style or figure it out!

You can say that again.

Make the text reporting based on the best practises. Some districts had informative, easily understood reports while some appeared to be written by 7 year olds.

[bbakernbay]

If we or someone else is paying for it, let's get it right is all that anyone expects - remember this is year #2

I've asked for wider lines for the Club trails as you can barely see them without zooming in a couple of times

Is it that difficult to program wider lines for Club trails? - Surely not?

Nobody has brought up the Groomer Tracking Technology that was installed in every groomer this year.

From what I hear it hasn't gone too smoothly but I'll let others chime in with their 2 cents worth.

We had to reactivate our 3 SPOT GPS units after cancelling them thinking the OFSC Groomer GPS would work from Day One - NOT!

[Canuck]

Groomer operator safety should be at the top of the list.

This sounds like the 'story' about the space program - the U.S. spending $$$ on pens that work in zero gravity and the Russians using pencils (it's an anecdote about spending resources on a 'high tech' solution when the simple solution is in front of you - 'snopes') .

As for the IAFG, let's hope plans aren't made (or cancelled) based on faulty information.

It's a short season - maybe the old system 'worked'. I'm not sure that the example of folks not knowing the meaning of "Trout Lake Road open from highway to lake" applies. If you're from there, you know what it means. If you're not, and are embarking on a saddlebag trip, you have a paper map to trace the route. At least you could look at the text based reports, and get a feel for the area. Yep-most trails are open. Let's go there.

It's Feb. 1st, and the system can't be trusted for planning, led alone riding.

[Yukon]

Go try the Interactive guide now ...

[flash 800]

I think you guys are all nutz!!! Step away from the computer for a while.......

[sledjunk]

Nobody has brought up the Groomer Tracking Technology that was installed in every groomer this year.

From what I hear it hasn't gone too smoothly but I'll let others chime in with their 2 cents worth.

We had to reactivate our 3 SPOT GPS units after cancelling them thinking the OFSC Groomer GPS would work from Day One - NOT!

We had them installed last season. The tracking was wildly inaccurate. The tracking software showed one of our groomers traveling cross country during the AGM! It was parked at the clubhouse.

Now we are told that they use Roger's cell service to communicate and 'may' need to be upgraded for sat service.

We already equip all of our groomers with 'Mike' phones as well as SPOT Units, in addition to the operators carrying their personal cell phones. The operators are instructed to carry the SPOT Units when they get out of the groomer for any reason as well.

[bbakernbay]

I've had real difficulty using the 'Historical' button to track progress of our groomer - sometimes it works, other times it doesn't which is very frustrating when you need to know.

SJ - Did you guys get any instructions on how to effectively use this software for reports, etc.

[dweese]

What are they using the track the groomers?

I was under the impression that they had just put spot trackers in the groomers? I know they only update every 10mins and you can only see the data for 7 days.

[skidooer]

So much for the stringent hiring process.

I kid, I kid. I know how easy it is to create a bug.

[SlowTouringGuy]

_{Snowcrest Trail 4 has been abducted by Aliens !!}

[Fred Quimby]

Go try the Interactive guide now ...

It's still JUNK Trails missing, breaks in trails. Seems like there is a major problem! Just being honest.

[Viperules700]

I think they need some better programers. Opening and closing trails should be a simple proceess. Clubs should be able to do their own updating and changes should be noticed on the map within a few minutes. Look at how they programmed the trail distances. Should be easy to write an easy to use program. Maybe volunteers are doing this on their own time.

[dweese]

I think they need some better programers. Opening and closing trails should be a simple proceess. Clubs should be able to do their own updating and changes should be noticed on the map within a few minutes. Look at how they programmed the trail distances. Should be easy to write an easy to use program. Maybe volunteers are doing this on their own time.

From what others have said, OFSC pays for this system.

It's been said and offered by members to build something better their offers have gone unanswered.

It is better than it was last year but still could use some work.

[SlowTouringGuy]

AND..............in the meantime, (and I said this last year; obviously gone unheeded) no sensible entity deploys a new software solution without running parallel, or having back-up. What sensible organization decides to run naked with a new system that leaves users without a choice?

Go ahead, launch the new IAFTG, but in the event that there are some bugs,etc, continue to run a parallel or back up system. How many club websites no longer post trail conditions but simply point to the IAFTG ? There are some clubs that have defied the decree and have re-instated posting conditions on their own but they are rogue clubs. I am fully supportive of the IAFTG but until it works, riders should have an alternative rather than being left in the dark. How about the example of last year the riders who were part of my group and split off to put on a significant number of km to find an unopened, unpacked and unopened trail a 100k or so from their destination as the sun was setting - the IAFTG showed the entire route as green. A quick check to the club website directed them to the IAFTG. Please, please, please, while the bugs are being worked out (and I know there will be bugs, I know the software business) run parallel with something tried and tested. This is the most basic approach to deployment. I doubt there is a first year IT student that hasn't learned this ! Why, when this was discussed a year ago, was a parallel/backup not reintroduced???? <sheesh> :roll:

[revrnd]

X1,000,000

STG, I guess by your definition, the Paudash, Stoney, Maple Leaf & Old Hastings clubs have gone "rogue". They all have trail status charts on their websites.

[bbakernbay]

X1,000,000

STG, I guess by your definition, the Paudash, Stoney, Maple Leaf & Old Hastings clubs have gone "rogue". They all have trail status charts on their websites.

To my knowledge, the OFSC has not told the Clubs that they can't post Trail Conditions - the only directive is to use only "CLOSED" - "LIMITED" or "OPEN" with no descriptions

[SlowTouringGuy]

To my knowledge, the OFSC has not told the Clubs that they can't post Trail Conditions - the only directive is to use only "CLOSED" - "LIMITED" or "OPEN" with no descriptions

Yet, too many clubs have elected to link only to the IAFTG. Clubs have been "encouraged" to do so. And, at the end of the day, I agree. The IAFTG should be the authoritative voice as to trail conditions and what is open and what is closed.

It is a sensible goal.

BUT, it is non-sensical to throw out that which has worked without knowing that the replacement is going to work. No, none, zero, nada, nil, bupkiss, sensible organization deploys new software without running parallel or having back up.

This was raised at the time of the introduction of the IAFTG and last year was less than stellar. Despite last year's debacle, there was little reintroduction of back up or parallel coverage and this year, while we sort through the bugs, riders are left with inadequate information. Again.

Sloppy is an understatement.

Bring on the new system. It is welcome ! But until it works to some level of customer satisifaction, give customers something they can work with. Run the old system for a couple of years while the new system works out the bugs. Every sensible organization that knows what they are doing does that. Even with first year IT Students for crying out loud.

The frustration is not really with the IAFTG, it is with the fact there is little alternative offered to a developing and yet to be fully developed offering.

[couchrocket500]

AND..............in the meantime, (and I said this last year; obviously gone unheeded) no sensible entity deploys a new software solution without running parallel, or having back-up. What sensible organization decides to run naked with a new system that leaves users without a choice?

Go ahead, launch the new IAFTG, but in the event that there are some bugs,etc, continue to run a parallel or back up system. How many club websites no longer post trail conditions but simply point to the IAFTG ? There are some clubs that have defied the decree and have re-instated posting conditions on their own but they are rogue clubs. I am fully supportive of the IAFTG but until it works, riders should have an alternative rather than being left in the dark. How about the example of last year the riders who were part of my group and split off to put on a significant number of km to find an unopened, unpacked and unopened trail a 100k or so from their destination as the sun was setting - the IAFTG showed the entire route as green. A quick check to the club website directed them to the IAFTG. Please, please, please, while the bugs are being worked out (and I know there will be bugs, I know the software business) run parallel with something tried and tested. This is the most basic approach to deployment. I doubt there is a first year IT student that hasn't learned this ! Why, when this was discussed a year ago, was a parallel/backup not reintroduced???? <sheesh> :roll:

[02Sled]

I think they need some better programers. Opening and closing trails should be a simple proceess. Clubs should be able to do their own updating and changes should be noticed on the map within a few minutes. Look at how they programmed the trail distances. Should be easy to write an easy to use program. Maybe volunteers are doing this on their own time.

So many people think programming is so simple. Just when you think you have a bullet proof program somebody hits a sequence of key strokes that causes something totally unexplained. Typically there are three stages of programming. Development staging and production. Each stage has its own testing before going into production and still people will manage to break it. When you say clubs should be able to update then you need to ensure that the PC and operating system or level of software is compatable with the program. Perhaps they need a Java app or other requirement. It is not necessarily that easy.

[Fred Quimby]

Tried the interactive map a few minutes ago. When the screen opens, the whole map is "black" . What a hunk of junk.

[skidooer]

So many people think programming is so simple.

It is!

Okay, mathematically proving you have no bugs is really hard. He's not talking about bugs though, he's talking about the process that requires three people to do what should be as easy as clicking a button. That is bad design, plain and simple (though UX is typically outside of realm the programmers operate in).

Also, you description of the development process is somewhat dated. These days, a lot of web shops, including bigs ones like Facebook, go straight to production with new code as soon as it is written.

[02Sled]

It is!

Okay, mathematically proving you have no bugs is really hard. He's not talking about bugs though, he's talking about the process that requires three people to do what should be as easy as clicking a button. That is bad design, plain and simple (though UX is typically outside of realm the programmers operate in).

Also, you description of the development process is somewhat dated. These days, a lot of web shops, including bigs ones like Facebook, go straight to production with new code as soon as it is written.

Tell IBM, Dell and HP their methodologies are dated along with most any other large enterprise. Updates to content is one thing. Changes in the base code are another.

[skidooer]

Tell IBM, Dell and HP their methodologies are dated along with most any other large enterprise. Updates to content is one thing. Changes in the base code are another.

Dinosaurs are known to move slowly.

Now show me a small organization trying to build a web presence, like the OFSC, that has seen success from a long development cycle. The only saving grace here is that there is no competition forcing their hand.

[02Sled]

Dinosaurs are known to move slowly.

Now show me a small organization trying to build a web presence, like the OFSC, that has seen success from a long development cycle. The only saving grace here is that there is no competition forcing their hand.

These are giants in the technology business and not dinosaurs by any stretch especially IBM. They are the giant worldwide. IBM had 2011 record revenue of 29 billion. You can see first hand here the risks associated with delivering software solutions that are not fully tested and essentially bullet proof. People grumble and whine incessantly here about the failures. The large retailers for example need their solutions to also be always available and reliable. They depend upon it.

Metrics show that if someone goes to your website and it is unavailable but they have been there before the likelihood of their coming back is just shy of 60%. If they have never been to your website the likelihood of them returning drops to 35%. If you are looking at something as benine as twitter and facebook where people have a burning need to tell you they had a sub for lunch that is a totally different world. If there is a hiccup and only have your friends find out what you had for lunch... no big deal. When you get into large enterprise especially online retail you need 100% availability and no glitches.

E-Bay world wide sales transactions last year were $14.5 billion... do you really think they release untested software changes and jeopardize that environment? If so you are deluded but then by your standard they must be a dinosaur.

Wal-Mart recently were forced to shut down their website for a number of weeks while they revamped and corrected significant problems customers were encountering with the site. They were crucified in the industry and business world for launching appliactions that were not fully tested and cost them millions in lost revenue and customer relations. That is what happens when you fly by the seat of your pants and launch untested software.

You don't need a long development cycle to develp quality but you still need to go through the thorough testing stages to ensure availability and reliability. It just means that you need to make your software changes a priority and apply the appropriate resources to achieve it in the timelines required.

A lot of small organizations can also take canned off the shelf software and tweak it to meet their own online presence quickly which needs little testing as those who sell that software have already done the testing. But when you have something as complex as the interactive map with all of the variables that can occur including adding and deleting accomodation parking and fuel, drilling down to the advertiser and linking to their website you are essentially talking large enterprise solutions in a small enterprise.

You asked about an example of someone looking to create a presence. Look a WagJag... in an interview they indicated they were almost a year in development of the software to ensure it operated flawlessly. The didn't want to risk anyone having a bad experience and not coming back.