Permalink Submitted by Visitor (not verified) on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 14:00
The resulting maps are definitely an asset.
My main issue is the time involved--based on the reported 10 minutes/map and, say 200 hikes, that's almost 33+ hours. Add in the parks maps.
What is the likelihood that this work will have to be redone in the not too distant future?
If it's low, then I will vote for #1, but note that we may not get all the maps up by March 1. Everyone has to be ok with that.
Permalink Submitted by Visitor (not verified) on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 18:49
We'll never get the maps finished by 3/1, but that doesn't mean we have to drop Google iframe. Walt isn't going to have less to do after 3/1, so choices 2 and 3 are not a choice.
I have stuff to do wearing my Trails Council hat-- have to get back to modifying the pdfs for some of the forms and work on a new interactive assignment form, so I need guidance as to what to do first, Ed.
Permalink Submitted by Visitor (not verified) on Fri, 02/06/2009 - 09:22
Ken, et al ... I would work on web features that you can finish before 3/1 (such as volunteer pdf's).
As long as we can designated all unfished maps/photos as "under construction" coupled with a volunteer solicitation (per Ann's suggestion) we don't need to sacrifice everything to the maps, which are admitedly a key feature.
What I want to avoid is the appearance of broken features which will undermine users confidence in the entire site.
Comment: Please be relevant, civil, non-commercial.
Not qualified to vote
Conditional vote
Realism
What to do today? What to do ...