Explore page - Weird duplicate router locations

[Andrew-Clement]

Stepping through TRD 287030, router 5 shows up in Vancouver:

Clicking on the final router produces another location for router 5

AS I plan to use this route in my talk, I've since flagged this router to make disappear, as while location corresponds with MM lat/long, it should be Vancouver)

@colinmccann If you can correct the locations of routers 4 and 5 to Vancouver, I'd appreciate it as this will make this example smoother. Not critical as I can show a sufficiently cleaned up version to make the point

Traceroute details: ID 287030 created on 2016-08-21 15:58:28-04
Origin: Submitted by grey from v9w
Destination: www.metrovancouver.org [192.155.0.251]

Hop IP Address Min. Latency Carrier Geolocation Geoprecision Hostname Flag
1 154.11.10.0 12 Telus Burnaby BC Maxmind 154.11.10.0 Flag This IP
2 173.241.130.1 12 TINET-BACKBONE Tinet SpA Seattle WA city level xe-10-3-1.sea23.ip4.tinet.net Flag This IP
3 141.136.108.34 16 TINET-BACKBONE Tinet SpA Vancouver BC city level xe-3-2-1.van10.ip4.gtt.net Flag This IP
4 173.205.56.222 18 AS-NLAYER - nLayer Communications, Inc. Maxmind urban-network-gw.ip4.gtt.net Flag This IP
5 97.107.178.110 18 URBAN-15-AS - Urban Networks Inc. Mayne BC Maxmind 97.107.178.110 Flag This IP

Hop IP Address Round Trip Times AS# Latitude Longitude Hostname Flag
1 154.11.10.0 13 13 29 20 852 49.25 -122.95 154.11.10.0 Flag This IP
2 173.241.130.1 14 12 17 13 3257 47.61 -122.33 xe-10-3-1.sea23.ip4.tinet.net Flag This IP
3 141.136.108.34 16 16 17 17 3257 49.25 -123.1 xe-3-2-1.van10.ip4.gtt.net Flag This IP
4 173.205.56.222 20 26 29 20 4436 0.0 0.0 urban-network-gw.ip4.gtt.net Flag This IP
5 97.107.178.110 20 18 21 26 6391 48.85 -123.3 97.107.178.110 Flag Thi

[Andrew-Clement]

Odd also that the Carrier Summary pane on the right shows only 2 carriers with a total of 3 routers, whereas there are 4 carriers and 5 routers listed.

[agamba]

I've been able to replicate this. The issue occurs when the option "Marker in Origin" is selected in combination with flagged routers. The issue is not with the coordinates or the position of the routers but with the pop up info window. By adding a marker in origin the info window calculates wrongly what information to show. This will require some further inspection and changes in the rendering function.

@colinmccann I recall you adapted an old version of this and created the pop up windows including buttons next and previous. Can you please point to this code. The bug is in the mouseover function and the Next/Previous buttons.

About the Carries summary table, the behaviour is not a but it is a result of excluding routers. As it works so far, if the routers are flagged by the user or excluded though other methods, such a generic coordinates, this removes as well the routers from the info window. We need to give some thought to this because we want to carrier table and the map to reflect the same information and router count

[agamba]

Just to clarify, excluded routers from the map also remove them from the Carrier Summary pane

[colinmccann]

Anto, the code is ~here: https://github.com/ixmaps/website/blob/master/js/ixmaps.gm.js#L930 I also second the need to seriously discuss how exclusion/flagging is going to work on the new mapping page. This is one place where there is potential overlap btw front and back end function - we need to be very careful in design!

…

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Antonio Gamba-Bari < ***@***.***> wrote: Just to clarify, excluded routers from the map also remove them from the Carrier Summary pane [image: screen shot 2017-02-20 at 10 19 36 am] <https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/999407/23130935/39da694c-f756-11e6-8a83-129fea50b4fe.png> — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#35 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAuEmCafQXFukoU0riEYDqXn1SXr-_s5ks5rea9zgaJpZM4MFttK> .

-- Colin

[Andrew-Clement]

Yes, we do need to discuss exclusion/flagging .

Just to put on table for now, ie no response needed at this time:

When a user has flagged a router and provided a city (perhaps confined to an existing city as found in type-ahead), the lat/long becomes immediately available so the router can be re-render with updated geo-location.There would need to be a code indicating user- located, which would indicate provisional location for later review and possible revision.

This would be very helpful to me when creating illustrative TRs, and I suspect would be rewarding to others who take the trouble to Flag.

[colinmccann]

I like this idea (and had been thinking something similar while in the shower last night)... but this requires a substantial (!!) rearchitecturing of both code and backend

…

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 3:57 AM, Andrew-Clement ***@***.***> wrote: Yes, we do need to discuss exclusion/flagging . Just to put on table for now, ie no response needed at this time: When a user has flagged a router and provided a city (perhaps confined to an existing city as found in type-ahead), the lat/long becomes immediately available so the router can be re-render with updated geo-location.There would need to be a code indicating user- located, which would indicate provisional location for later review and possible revision. This would be very helpful to me when creating illustrative TRs, and I suspect would be rewarding to others who take the trouble to Flag. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#35 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAuEmOBI-avjodUnln5SzxBK4fBFlQCFks5re0-fgaJpZM4MFttK> .

-- Colin