Streetmap.co.uk
I'm having great difficulty getting map pages from streetmap.co.uk. Many of the aquares don't appear, and if I refresh the page I just get a different random selection of squares. It is very difficult to get all nine squares of a small map at once, and virtually impossible to get all 25 of a large map. What's the problem? -- Richard Porterhttp://www.minijem.plus.com/ Skype: minijem2 mailto:r...@minijem.plus.com I don't want a "user experience" - I just want stuff that works.
Re: streetmap.co.uk
On 14 Jun 2013 Rob Kendrick wrote: > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 09:58:17AM +0100, Richard Porter wrote: >> On 13 Jun 2013 Bernard Boase wrote: >> >> NetSurf 2.9 will render the maps; the latest dev versions won't. >> I've complained to streetmap about the removal of the old interface. >> In particualr it makes it harder to extract the map images from a >> saved draw file. > Why do you think they care about removing the ability of their users to > take copyrighted data they are not licenced to use, and for the sake of > at most a few dozen users? I don't, but it is perfectly reasonable to expect to be able to print off a map for use away from the computer e.g. in the car or out walking or cycling if you don't have a sat-nav. That is not an infringement of copyright if it's for your own use and not republished elsewhere. Anyway I didn't mention that to streetmap - only the fact that the new interface doesn't work on any RISC OS browser. I subsequently found that NS2.9 would still render the maps and possibly other versions with JS off. My point about extracting map images was inaccurate. In fact I just delete all the extraneous stuff, leaving the actual map to be printed on A4. I normally used Fresco because the saved draw files are compatible with my printer whereas NetSurf's aren't due to 32-bit colour sprites. -- Richard Porterhttp://www.minijem.plus.com/ mailto:r...@minijem.plus.com I don't want a "user experience" - I just want stuff that works.
Re: streetmap.co.uk
In message <000e0c75.01cce5000...@smtp.freeola.net> Peter Slegg wrote: > It works if you enter a search location and then display the > static map. I'm using v1257. After locating a significant map, I just put this url address into my hotlist and now run SM from there. -- BW Chris F. If you buy energy from Npower and don't approve of Tax Avoidance go to http://action.38degrees.org.uk/npower
Re: streetmap.co.uk
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 09:58:17AM +0100, Richard Porter wrote: > On 13 Jun 2013 Bernard Boase wrote: > > NetSurf 2.9 will render the maps; the latest dev versions won't. > I've complained to streetmap about the removal of the old interface. > In particualr it makes it harder to extract the map images from a > saved draw file. Why do you think they care about removing the ability of their users to take copyrighted data they are not licenced to use, and for the sake of at most a few dozen users? What should happen here is that NetSurf gets developed more so the new scheme works, and you should email somebody who gives a damn :) B.
Re: streetmap.co.uk
On 13 Jun 2013 Bernard Boase wrote: > Until recently Netsurf could render maps at streetmap.co.uk provided > one entered via their older interface at > http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newdefaulte2.htm from which exporting a > drawfile could be extremely useful. > But now even entering via this URL, the map display is only in the new > format which Netsurf apparently cannot display. I am currently using > 3.1 (Dec Cl #1252). > Any suggestions? NetSurf 2.9 will render the maps; the latest dev versions won't. I've complained to streetmap about the removal of the old interface. In particualr it makes it harder to extract the map images from a saved draw file. -- Richard Porterhttp://www.minijem.plus.com/ mailto:r...@minijem.plus.com I don't want a "user experience" - I just want stuff that works.
Re: streetmap.co.uk
On 13 Jun, Alan Calder wrote: > Is 3.1 a JS enabled version and is the presence of such ability at the > root of the problem? You're right. If I disable Javascript (in Choices->Content) I do get visible maps, now in the new theme and after a brief message advising that Javascript, ..., er it disappears too quickly to read! -- Bernard
Re: streetmap.co.uk
> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:22:43 +0100 > From: Bernard Boase > Subject: streetmap.co.uk > To: netsurf-users@netsurf-browser.org > Message-ID: <026d155b53.bo...@boase.demon.co.uk> > Until recently Netsurf could render maps at streetmap.co.uk provided > one entered via their older interface at > http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newdefaulte2.htm from which exporting a > drawfile could be extremely useful. > > But now even entering via this URL, the map display is only in the new > format which Netsurf apparently cannot display. I am currently using > 3.1 (Dec Cl #1252). > > Any suggestions? > I used Streetmap a few weeks ago and just tried again with the 1257 build. It works if you enter a search location and then display the static map. Peter
Re: streetmap.co.uk
> But if javascript is on - then it does not work at all, doesn't display > the "No javascript" message and doesn't progress (no change there > either!)... Maybe this is your problem? Hadn't explicitly thought about that, but I just (3.0) with JS enabled and JS disabled. The behaviour seems to be the same. (But one thing I reported before was incorrect. Changing scale keeps you in the old format. It's just moving the centre that jumps to new format.) Regards -- John Harrison Website http://jaharrison.me.uk
Re: streetmap.co.uk
In article <535b3bc356j...@jaharrison.me.uk>, John Harrison wrote: > > ... Streetmap hasn't changed recently... > It has! > I use it regularly and the behaviour changed (as per my previous posting) > about a week ago. Alright - I should have been more spoecific. There has been no change in Streetmap's behaviour when used the way I outlined. I've just updated to 3.1 (Dev CI #1257) and Streetmap (used the way I said) behaves exactly as it always has. But if javascript is on - then it does not work at all, doesn't display the "No javascript" message and doesn't progress (no change there either!)... Maybe this is your problem? Support at Streetmap were very helpful: I contacted them some while ago, when they changed to the new version, and was assured that the old version would remain. So whatever's happened is not a Netsurf thing... -- Richard Torrens. http://www.Torrens.org.uk for genealogy, natural history, wild food, walks, cats and more!
Re: streetmap.co.uk
> ... Streetmap hasn't changed recently... It has! I use it regularly and the behaviour changed (as per my previous posting) about a week ago. Regards -- John Harrison Website http://jaharrison.me.uk
Re: streetmap.co.uk
In article <026d155b53.bo...@boase.demon.co.uk>, Bernard Boase wrote: > Until recently Netsurf could render maps at streetmap.co.uk provided > one entered via their older interface at > http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newdefaulte2.htm from which exporting a > drawfile could be extremely useful. > But now even entering via this URL, the map display is only in the new > format which Netsurf apparently cannot display. I am currently using > 3.1 (Dec Cl #1252). Seems to work OK, if you ignore the iffy formatting, in NS 2.9. I can enter a postcode and get a map which I can then zoom in and out of and move with the tools provided. Is 3.1 a JS enabled version and is the presence of such ability at the root of the problem? Alan -- Alan Calder, Milton Keynes, UK.
Re: streetmap.co.uk
In article <026d155b53.bo...@boase.demon.co.uk>, Bernard Boase wrote: > Until recently Netsurf could render maps at streetmap.co.uk provided > one entered via their older interface at > http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newdefaulte2.htm from which exporting a > drawfile could be extremely useful. > But now even entering via this URL, the map display is only in the new > format which Netsurf apparently cannot display. I am currently using > 3.1 (Dec Cl #1252). > Any suggestions? I use Stretmap a lot. But I always use it by clicking a link in StrongED. e.g. http://streetmap.co.uk/loc/Burwell This takes you to a page hich asks whih Burwell. Click the appropriate one. Then you go to a page which asks for j/s. Wait and you do automatically to the static map - which works absolutely fine. This with 3.1 (Dev CI #1125) Streetmap hasn't changed recently. You can also menu on a squatre of the map and Object -> Object -> Save which can be dropped straight into OpenVector and imported as a JPEG. -- Richard Torrens. http://www.Torrens.org.uk for genealogy, natural history, wild food, walks, cats and more!
Re: streetmap.co.uk
> ... via their older interface at > http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newdefaulte2.htm ... the map display is only > in the new format which Netsurf apparently cannot display. It has changed, and it is annoying, but what I get with NS 3.00 (and RO5.18) is better than that. It all works normally as far as displaying the first map. At that point I used to edit the z= value in the URL to a small to a small even number (eg 2 or 4) which gave a much more useful 5x5 square display, but if I do that now it jumps to the new format and tries to fit 25 map squares into the 3x3 window, making a right mess. If I use any control (scale or move) it also jumps to the new format. Most of the controls in the new format work OK, and there is one to switch to 5x5, so you don't need to edit the URL. The one thing that doesn't work is the search box. The Go button seems to work, but I can't find a way to type into the search field. I just tried it with Dev #953 (the latest I had loaded) and (a) it goes straight to a new style page to offer you the alternative places, which works but then (b) displays a blank map on which (c) none of the controls work. Regards -- John Harrison Website http://jaharrison.me.uk
Re: streetmap.co.uk
In article <026d155b53.bo...@boase.demon.co.uk>, Bernard Boase wrote: > But now even entering via this URL, the map display is only in the new > format which Netsurf apparently cannot display. I am currently using > 3.1 (Dec Cl #1252). Seems to work OK with Dev CI #1257. Thanks for the URL - useful! John
streetmap.co.uk
Until recently Netsurf could render maps at streetmap.co.uk provided one entered via their older interface at http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newdefaulte2.htm from which exporting a drawfile could be extremely useful. But now even entering via this URL, the map display is only in the new format which Netsurf apparently cannot display. I am currently using 3.1 (Dec Cl #1252). Any suggestions? -- Bernard
Re: streetmap.co.uk
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6 Dec 2008 Rob Kendrick wrote: > > A browser that cannot render broken HTML is not a useful thing, given > > the vast majority of sites are broken. Thus, knowing that sites are > > broken is not useful. > But knowing how they are broken is, and so is knowing how mainstream > browsers deal with the same faults. Knowing that a site is valid is > also useful, since a browser must correctly render compliant sites. The point that Rob and I really wanted to make is; if you find a page that NetSurf makes a mess of, telling the web master of the site that their pages fail to validate will never help NetSurf render that page. Even if the web master immediately fixed the reams of trivial issues the validator throws up there wouldn't be a change in NetSurf's rendering. The validator checks markup grammar and syntax, but issues with these will cause the same effects in NetSurf as in other browsers. HTML5 has formulated exactly how to handle bad HTML syntax and grammar based on the behaviour of the mainstream browsers. NetSurf now has an implementation of the HTML5 parsing algorithm, so be behave has other browsers do in the face of invalid HTML. So if you find a site that doesn't work with NetSurf and you would like to contact the web master about it, hoping they'll be able to produce a work around faster than we can fix NetSurf then consider the following: + If the site doesn't work in a mainstream browser with JavaScript disabled then NetSurf has no chance. You could let the web master know that you need to be able to access the site without JavaScript to use it. + If the site does work in a mainstream browser with JavaScript disabled then NetSurf should probably manage and it's a NetSurf bug or un-implemented feature at fault. The only way for the web master to do anything about it would be to install NetSurf and try it for themselves. We have the following page for this purpose: http://www.netsurf-browser.org/webmasters/ Maybe we could update that page with more info. Of course, even if you contact the web master about a page, the NetSurf developers would like to see it too, so always report non-working sites to us. :) Note, I've said "you", but I really meant to address any NetSurf user here. Best regards, Michael -- Michael Drake (tlsa) http://www.netsurf-browser.org/
Re: streetmap.co.uk
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Rob Kendrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:03:29 + (GMT) Tim Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Drake > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Validation results aren't a guarantee of anything. > > > > > > It's a start. > > > > > > The chances are that if they can't get that bit right... > > Not really. > No, yes, really. My point is that sloppiness in one area will > indicate sloppiness in others. CSS: The Missing Manual by David Sawyer McFarland highlights the fact that all html/CSS should be processed through a validation service. I have found this useful just to clear some obvious but missed html/CSS errors. Having read this superb book I would not like to argue with him. Regards Richard
Re: streetmap.co.uk
On 6 Dec 2008 Rob Kendrick wrote: > Please note everybody that I said that validators serve no purpose in > the development of web browsers. You and others appear to be confusing > this with the development of web sites. I think I made precisely that distinction. > A browser that cannot render broken HTML is not a useful thing, given > the vast majority of sites are broken. Thus, knowing that sites are > broken is not useful. But knowing how they are broken is, and so is knowing how mainstream browsers deal with the same faults. Knowing that a site is valid is also useful, since a browser must correctly render compliant sites. -- _ |_|. _ Richard Porter http://www.minijem.plus.com/ |\_||_mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Disclaimer: I disclaim everything.
Re: streetmap.co.uk
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Kendrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [Snip missed irony] > The end. Let's hope so. -- Tim Hill, www.timil.com
Re: streetmap.co.uk
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 10:24:59 + (GMT) Tim Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, we can all write our web sites in the most terribly convoluted > html nonsense in the understanding that we don't have to worry > because all web browser developers will take care of everything that > may be wrong. That's a load off my mind and will save so much > time. Please note everybody that I said that validators serve no purpose in the development of web browsers. You and others appear to be confusing this with the development of web sites. A browser that cannot render broken HTML is not a useful thing, given the vast majority of sites are broken. Thus, knowing that sites are broken is not useful. The end. B.
Re: streetmap.co.uk
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Kendrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [Snip] > I'd be all for people never mentioning validators here ever again. They > serve no useful purpose for the development of web browsers. That's such a bizarre statement I would frame it but for the fact this isn't paper. :-D So, we can all write our web sites in the most terribly convoluted html nonsense in the understanding that we don't have to worry because all web browser developers will take care of everything that may be wrong. That's a load off my mind and will save so much time. But okay, point noted, shan't mention validators here again but I reserve the right to spit them in the face of so-called web developers who think 'everyone uses a pee sea'. -- Tim Hill, www.timil.com
Re: streetmap.co.uk
On 6 Dec 2008 Rob Kendrick wrote: > I'd be all for people never mentioning validators here ever again. > They serve no useful purpose for the development of web browsers. But they do provide a useful purpose for the development of web sites, unless of course you'd prefer to have no standards at all and just do your own thing of follow Microsoft. But even Microsoft has now seen the sense of producing a somewhat more compliant browser in IE8. -- _ |_|. _ Richard Porter http://www.minijem.plus.com/ |\_||_mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Disclaimer: I disclaim everything.
Re: streetmap.co.uk
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Kendrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd be all for people never mentioning validators here ever again. > They serve no useful purpose for the development of web browsers. Are they useful for anything? Have I been wasting my time making sure that all my web pages validate correctly? -- Barry A.
Re: streetmap.co.uk
On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:39:05 + (GMT) Tim Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Rob Kendrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:03:29 + (GMT) Tim Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Drake > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Validation results aren't a guarantee of anything. > > > > > > It's a start. > > > > > > The chances are that if they can't get that bit right... > > > Not really. > > No, yes, really. My point is that sloppiness in one area will indicate > sloppiness in others. All endeavours will have sloppiness in one person's view, in at lease one aspect. That doesn't mean all endeavours are dreadful. I'd be all for people never mentioning validators here ever again. They serve no useful purpose for the development of web browsers.
Re: streetmap.co.uk
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Kendrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:03:29 + (GMT) Tim Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Drake > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Validation results aren't a guarantee of anything. > > > > It's a start. > > > > The chances are that if they can't get that bit right... > Not really. No, yes, really. My point is that sloppiness in one area will indicate sloppiness in others. [snip] -- Tim Hill, www.timil.com
Re: streetmap.co.uk
On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:03:29 + (GMT) Tim Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Drake > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Validation results aren't a guarantee of anything. > > It's a start. > > The chances are that if they can't get that bit right... Not really. The validity of the HTML has almost no relation what-so-ever to it being rendered correctly. It's much more likely that NetSurf simply doesn't support features that a given author may select to use. With its new HTML5 parser, NetSurf parses broken and invalid HTML really quite well. B.
Re: streetmap.co.uk
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Validation results aren't a guarantee of anything. It's a start. The chances are that if they can't get that bit right... -- Tim Hill, www.timil.com
Re: streetmap.co.uk
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > cc. of email to street map: [snip] I didn't really understand this. Anyway, there is at least one NetSurf bug that we know to be causing bad layout on the new streetmap.co.uk site. > You may want to run a few of your pages through http://validator.w3.org/ > to see what I mean. Validation results aren't a guarantee of anything. We render some sites that cause loads of validation errors perfectly and we render other sites which are perfectly valid poorly. It's generally features we haven't implemented or bugs in features we have implemented which cause bad layout. Michael -- Michael Drake (tlsa) http://www.netsurf-browser.org/
Re: streetmap.co.uk
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dr Peter Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4 Dec 2008 Bernard Boase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Oh dear. That s useful site http://www.streetmap.co.uk has now > > been redesigned. [Snip] > > then use Draw to solve the jigsaw. > This new site is a real pig's ear! [Snip] cc. of email to street map: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: advertising query Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:40 Hi Claire I was thinking about advertising on streetmap but I see your company doesn't understand how web pages should work so my adverts wouldn't work on every device someone may use. i.e. Mobile phones, non-javascript enabled browsers etc. Can you please tell me when you expect your site to be compliant with internet standards before I go any further. You may want to run a few of your pages through http://validator.w3.org/ to see what I mean. If I was asking you to do a mailshot, I wouldn't expect 10% not to fit through an unknown brand of size-compliant letterbox. T -- Tim Hill, www.timil.com
Re: streetmap.co.uk
On 4 Dec 2008 Bernard Boase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oh dear. That s useful site http://www.streetmap.co.uk has now > been redesigned. You can for the time being click through to the > original version, but with the new one you enter names, postcodes etc. > a bit displaced below the proffered input box, and it still works. > But on choosing the new 5x5 Map Size option the map squares are > displayed tastefully jumbled into a 3x9 grid on my Iyonix! > Happily, the Export to Draw function operates as before for 3x3 and, > for 5x5, you can then use Draw to solve the jigsaw. This new site is a real pig's ear! How, with the new site (described as beta, by the way) did you chose the 3X3 map? I can't find how to do it. With best wishes, Peter. (a.k.a. Disgusted of Cheltenham) -- Peter, \ / zfc Tm \ Prestbury, Cheltenham, Glos. GL52 Anne\/ ____\ England. and / / \ | | |\ | / _\ http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk family / \__/ \_/ | \| \__/ \__ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
streetmap.co.uk
Oh dear. That s useful site http://www.streetmap.co.uk has now been redesigned. You can for the time being click through to the original version, but with the new one you enter names, postcodes etc. a bit displaced below the proffered input box, and it still works. But on choosing the new 5x5 Map Size option the map squares are displayed tastefully jumbled into a 3x9 grid on my Iyonix! Happily, the Export to Draw function operates as before for 3x3 and, for 5x5, you can then use Draw to solve the jigsaw. -- Bernard Netsurf 2.0 (Dev) (03-Dec-2008 11:45) r5872
