Discussion What is the most efficient way to crowdsource the 3D system coordinates

[JesusFreke]

Oh, nice. It looks like the thread is alive again. It was temporarily marked as read-only as part of a mass flagging of threads in the various gamma-related forums.

Anywhoo..

TornSoul: I went through and verified all the systems I've added so far. Here are the systems that have been renamed. Interestingly, you can still find these systems by searching for the old name.

The first value is the old name, the second value is the new name

Hydrae Sector IR-W B1-0, Crucis Sector ER-V B2-0
Hydrae Sector KM-W B1-4, Crucis Sector GM-V B2-4
Hydrae Sector IR-W B1-2, Crucis Sector ER-V B2-2
Hydrae Sector IR-W B1-5, Crucis Sector ER-V B2-5
Hydrae Sector IM-W C1-26, Crucis Sector EW-W C1-26
Sharru Sector FG-Y D92, Puppis Sector DL-Y D92
Hydrae Sector AA-A D142, Crucis Sector YE-A D142
Sharru Sector IR-W C1-15, Puppis Sector GW-W C1-15
Hydrae Sector LM-W B1-5, Crucis Sector HM-V B2-5
Sharru Sector IR-W C1-13, Puppis Sector GW-W C1-13
Hydrae Sector AA-A D104, Crucis Sector YE-A D104
Sharru Sector IR-W C1-14, Puppis Sector GW-W C1-14
Sharru Sector SD-T B3-6, Puppis Sector NN-T B3-6
Core Sys Sector CQ-Y C22, Puppis Sector FW-W C1-22
Core Sys Sector DL-Y D117, Puppis Sector DL-Y D117
Core Sys Sector DL-Y D116, Puppis Sector DL-Y D116
Sharru Sector IR-W C1-23, Puppis Sector GW-W C1-23
Core Sys Sector DL-Y D106, Puppis Sector DL-Y D106
Sharru Sector MC-V B2-2, Puppis Sector HM-V B2-2
Sharru Sector MC-V B2-3, Puppis Sector HM-V B2-3
Crucis Sector IW-W B1-1, Paiphu
Core Sys Sector NC-V B2-6, Puppis Sector QD-T B3-6

Please let me know once they've been renamed. I'll hold off submitting any new distances until then, so I won't accidentally submit some distances with an old name while you're in the process of renaming them.

 

[JesusFreke]

Some EDSC Stats so far

Someone said they wanted some stats?


Overall, there have been 8880 distances and 1120 new stars submitted.

And some stats by user:

Stars (based on the "created by" field in EDSC)

Spoiler

: 166
AcerM: 13
Adorjan Solys: 1
Aodh aCæl: 3
Argent: 18
Athanasius: 4
Bollwerk: 16
C BLAIR: 2
Caernon: 2
Camlin: 1
Catt: 1
Codec: 19
ComradeCowboy: 2
Cormellion: 2
Cross: 7
Cupcake: 1
Dolpa: 2
Doswell: 1
Doug Shaftoe: 1
Draelnor: 1
Dunn: 4
Eid LeWeise: 1
Emenai: 4
Finwen: 44
Harbinger: 109
Harkole: 1
Henry Doresett Case: 1
Heronymus: 1
Ibizan: 9
Inhumierer: 7
JesusFreke: 459
Johnimus Prime: 1
Kibblet: 2
Kisynth: 1
Klupoctuous: 2
Ligerzero459: 3
LordKee: 45
Maddavo: 42
Nazutin Blazar: 5
Orokon: 1
Phantom EsOI: 1
Pingouin Masqué: 1
Positive Contact: 1
Red Acted: 1
RedWizzard: 38
Rusty Shackleford: 3
Serpentstar: 1
Shimmergloom667: 4
Shyll: 1
Smacker: 6
Snuble: 8
Spacenoodle: 2
Sparkster: 1
Stanislav Scheck: 2
TH3_FR4GIL3: 1
TheHesh: 3
Theodore Pirx: 1
Thrudd: 1
TornSoul: 13
W0nk0: 1
Yalamand Palir: 6
Yelo: 1
Zoy: 1
c0balt: 2
kfsone: 1
pelrun: 3
sxygeek: 1
technophebe: 2
thumblewend: 1
tradedangerous: 3
wolverine2710: 4

Distances (based on the "created by" field in EDSC)

Spoiler

: 908
AcerM: 69
Adorjan Solys: 5
Aodh aCæl: 20
Argent: 57
Athanasius: 26
Bollwerk: 84
C BLAIR: 3
Caernon: 8
Camlin: 5
Catt: 5
Codec: 233
ComradeCowboy: 5
Cormellion: 8
Cross: 35
Cupcake: 5
Dolpa: 36
Doswell: 5
Doug Shaftoe: 5
Draelnor: 5
Dunn: 20
Eid LeWeise: 4
Emenai: 17
Finwen: 274
Harbinger: 1493
Harkole: 1
Henry Doresett Case: 31
Heronymus: 10
Ibizan: 53
Inhumierer: 37
JesusFreke: 3798
Johnimus Prime: 3
Kibblet: 3
Kisynth: 15
Klupoctuous: 10
Ligerzero459: 8
LordKee: 261
Maddavo: 527
Nazutin Blazar: 14
Orokon: 5
Phantom EsOI: 1
Pingouin Masqué: 3
Positive Contact: 5
Red Acted: 15
RedWizzard: 314
Rusty Shackleford: 12
Serpentstar: 5
Shimmergloom667: 20
Shyll: 5
Smacker: 30
Snuble: 61
Spacenoodle: 10
Sparkster: 9
Stanislav Scheck: 10
TH3_FR4GIL3: 5
TheHesh: 11
Theodore Pirx: 10
Thrudd: 5
TornSoul: 66
W0nk0: 5
Yalamand Palir: 30
Yelo: 5
Zoy: 5
c0balt: 9
kfsone: 6
pelrun: 15
sxygeek: 5
technophebe: 10
thumblewend: 3
tradedangerous: 6
wolverine2710: 73

 

[TornSoul]

JesusFreke thank you for the list!

I've got a similar (thankfully smaller) list from rw in PM (I'll have to compare them)

-----

Before I do anything though I'd like your opinion on the following:

So far I've been manually updating the TGC - and for renaming etc that works fine, as the "updateddate" will be updated, so that tools can automatically capture these changes.

The problem is however whenever I do a deletion.
Situation:
Someone submits a system (but miss types the name) along with enough distances to calculate coordinates.
The miss typed system is of a (correct) system *already* in the DB with coords (and potentially distances).
We thus end up with two systems (well, same system, but with two different names) with the same coordinates.

Obviously the wrong one needs to be deleted.

This sadly was a situation I didn't anticipate - And thus the system isn't really geared to handle deletions.
Or rather - It isn't geared to report those deletions to users of TGC.

Which can be an issue for tool makers relying on the data (they can ofc (and should) do their own sanity checks - but it's annoying).

So what I would propose would be to simply set cr=-1 for entries that have been "deleted", as this will update the "updateddate" field, and thus a pull from TGC will show that this entry needs to be deleted in your local DB (or marked similarly)

Would this be an acceptable way forward?
And pitfalls with this approach you guys can spot?
Or an even better way of handling it? (that doesn't require me to rewrite the whole DB/code setup )

Even with the cr=-1 change, I'll need to touch all my stored procedures etc (so that cr=-1 entries are ignored) but I think that's the lesser evil atm.

Thoughts?


EDIT:

On second thought...

If I'm going through all the trouble of updating all stored procedures (to ignore deleted entries), I might as well change all the tables and add a boolean "isValid" column instead - To avoid overloading the cr value.
As that can always have unforeseen consequences - depending on (code) logic in both my own code and that of tool makers - depending on the cr value.

Thoughts?

 

[Athan]

I'd been musing about the deletion issue myself. The 'isValid' boolean sounds like the sensible thing to do.

 

[MFCamillus]

Just wanted to comment - Some things do appear to have moved. But not all. For instance I've been away for 3 days. Pareco where I was parked is now at ~~ -70.12.21 (eyeball) instead of -84.-17.19 where it was before. If I look at some of the other stars in the old neighborhood that I was trading with they appear the same Gamma. There is a star - COL285 Sector MZ-U B17-1 - in the old place of Pareco. (and of course I am in a totally unexplored system also so I have no idea what is around me.....)

TL;DR some things appear to have moved - or at least their names have switched and it appears to be switching of at least one and probably more with economies. So it looks lile there will be some gaps from Gamma data

 

[TornSoul]

Uck... That's confirmed.

Pareco has definitely moved.

Or some other star got given Pareco's name for some reason (and the original Pareco got renamed)

And I can't find anything in MBs Gamma list in the position that Pareco now has.

So yeah... eeek.
I think we need an update or I'll have to continually update systems as they pop up...

 

[JesusFreke]

JesusFreke thank you for the list!

I've got a similar (thankfully smaller) list from rw in PM (I'll have to compare them)

-----

Before I do anything though I'd like your opinion on the following:

So far I've been manually updating the TGC - and for renaming etc that works fine, as the "updateddate" will be updated, so that tools can automatically capture these changes.

The problem is however whenever I do a deletion.
Situation:
Someone submits a system (but miss types the name) along with enough distances to calculate coordinates.
The miss typed system is of a (correct) system *already* in the DB with coords (and potentially distances).
We thus end up with two systems (well, same system, but with two different names) with the same coordinates.

Obviously the wrong one needs to be deleted.

This sadly was a situation I didn't anticipate - And thus the system isn't really geared to handle deletions.
Or rather - It isn't geared to report those deletions to users of TGC.

Which can be an issue for tool makers relying on the data (they can ofc (and should) do their own sanity checks - but it's annoying).

So what I would propose would be to simply set cr=-1 for entries that have been "deleted", as this will update the "updateddate" field, and thus a pull from TGC will show that this entry needs to be deleted in your local DB (or marked similarly)

Would this be an acceptable way forward?
And pitfalls with this approach you guys can spot?
Or an even better way of handling it? (that doesn't require me to rewrite the whole DB/code setup )

Even with the cr=-1 change, I'll need to touch all my stored procedures etc (so that cr=-1 entries are ignored) but I think that's the lesser evil atm.

Thoughts?


EDIT:

On second thought...

If I'm going through all the trouble of updating all stored procedures (to ignore deleted entries), I might as well change all the tables and add a boolean "isValid" column instead - To avoid overloading the cr value.
As that can always have unforeseen consequences - depending on (code) logic in both my own code and that of tool makers - depending on the cr value.

Thoughts?

Either way works for me. The "CR" thing makes some sense, because CR is meant to be some sort of proxy for the reliability of the data, so -1 CR means "really really not reliable". But on the other hand, it's not the fact that it's not reliable, it's just plain wrong. An isValid flag will obviously work fine too, and I don't have any objection against that.

Whichever way we end up going, we probably want to do the same for bad distances as well.

 

[TornSoul]

Whichever way we end up going, we probably want to do the same for bad distances as well.

Yup - That was the idea.
And the same for static data - Once I get around to that.
(so yet another plus point for not having done that yet )

 

[wolverine2710]

OK, I've been officially slacking. I did write Michael Brookes a PM just before Gamma 2 hit us iirc. PM conversation beneath in spoiler:

Spoiler

As far as I'm aware none of the established systems will change, it's the contacts of systems that might differ.

Michael

Hello Mr Brookes,

Edward Lewis posted in the forums that there will be no wipe at launch on the 16th of December. What does this mean wrt to the Stellar Forge seed and to be more specific for the list of 3D coordinates you were so kind to supply us with. I thought you mentioned somewhere that were were a few name changes - for system names I assume.

Questions:

1. Are all system names supplied still valid? As in will NOT change with release 1.0?
2. Are ALL coordinates supplied still valid? As in will NOT change with release 1.0?
3. Should you have a new (perhaps even more extensive list of coordinates) list we are very interested in it.

I hope you can answer all three questions.
It would be of great consequence for the crowd source project.

With kind regards,
Jan aka cmdr Wolverine

It means that we don't need to wipe if any of those things change.

Thanks

Michael

Hello Mr Brookes,

Thanks for the answer but I don't totally understand your answer or at least not sure how to interpret it.

The question boils down to, whether or NOT the current Gamma partial list of system names with coordinates HAS changed for release 1.0 or that it has NOT changed. See also my three separate questions in the original PM.

With kind regard,
Jan aka cmdr Wolverine

Some might, but mostly it should remain the same.

Thanks

Michael

That indeed is a clear answer. Unfortunately checking all 19883 entries in the Gamma list is prety much NOT do able. We can however double check the ones which were found with the crowd source project so far - no that many so far.

Would it be possible for you to supply us one last time with a partial list of system names and coordinates for release 1.0? I can understand that is only possible when ED has been released. The tool authors can then easily compare the Gamma list with the Release list and check for differences. A release 1.0 list would be very much appreciated.

Jan aka cmdr Wolverine.

Bottom line: "Michael Brookes: As far as I'm aware none of the established systems will change, it's the contacts of systems that might differ"

I think we now have prove that things DID change, coordinates wise.
I will PM Michael Brookes again to see if we again and I assume for the last time can get a partial list of system names with coordinates.
I don't think its do able to recheck them all again....

 

[TornSoul]

I think we now have prove that things DID change, coordinates wise.
I will PM Michael Brookes again to see if we again and I assume for the last time can get a partial list of system names with coordinates.
I don't think its do able to recheck them all again....

Agreed.

(at least 8 characters required...)

 

[wolverine2710]

Agreed.

(at least 8 characters required...)

You lost me there....

 

[TornSoul]

lol.

The forums demand that your post contains at least 8 characters.

Writing just "Agreed." wasn't enough - So had to add "something extra"

 

[MFCamillus]

I think we now have prove that things DID change, coordinates wise.

Just wanted to comment - Some things do appear to have moved. But not all. For instance I've been away for 3 days. Pareco where I was parked is now at ~~ -70.12.21 (eyeball) instead of -84.-17.19 where it was before.

Contacts also changed - a LOT. I'm now at an outpost not a Coriolis, it's Industrial instead of Agricultural, and a different faction controls it....which makes me wonder about the good relations I left with factions in other systems..... And the system is totally unexplored - interesting to be IN a system and not know where anything in the system is.

But it is the coordinates that are troubling to me. If there is one - there are probably more.

 

[wolverine2710]

Contacts also changed - a LOT. I'm now at an outpost not a Coriolis, it's Industrial instead of Agricultural, and a different faction controls it....which makes me wonder about the good relations I left with factions in other systems..... And the system is totally unexplored - interesting to be IN a system and not know where anything in the system is.

But it is the coordinates that are troubling to me. If there is one - there are probably more.

Michael Brookes in our PM's said that contacts might change. So "might" turned out to be actually "a LOT"

I have send Michael Brookes a new PM asking for a new partial list of system names and coordinates. Should he have more info, I've said we are very interested in each and every piece of information. As it is release day I can imagine I don't get a response back today. He normally is very fast in responding ;-) Also asked if this IS the last time the stellar forge (for release 1.x.x) has changed....

 

[wolverine2710]

Bad news....

Michael Brookes in our PM's said that contacts might change. So "might" turned out to be actually "a LOT"

I have send Michael Brookes a new PM asking for a new partial list of system names and coordinates. Should he have more info, I've said we are very interested in each and every piece of information. As it is release day I can imagine I don't get a response back today. He normally is very fast in responding ;-) Also asked if this IS the last time the stellar forge (for release 1.x.x) has changed....

I received a PM back from Michael Brookes.

There isn't an updated spreadsheet with this information. We stopped using the spreadsheet awhile back.

Thanks

Michael

That is suboptimal.
So it looks as if we DO have to check them all again OR just leave it and only correct things when it turns out (one way or the other) that things have changed. What do you all think?

I will ask Michael Brookes again if there isn't some sort of data dump available (or could be made available) which we could use........... Even if it is written in Russian/Swahili I think the talented commanders here will decypher it anyway ;-)

PS. He hasn't responded to my question about "the Stellar Forge will never change again, is that true". I will try to get confirmation/denial about that one.

 

[Michael Brookes]

I received a PM back from Michael Brookes.

That is suboptimal.
So it looks as if we DO have to check them all again OR just leave it and only correct things when it turns out (one way or the other) that things have changed. What do you all think?

I will ask Michael Brookes again if there isn't some sort of data dump available (or could be made available) which we could use........... Even if it is written in Russian/Swahili I think the talented commanders here will decypher it anyway ;-)

PS. He hasn't responded to my question about "the Stellar Forge will never change again, is that true". I will try to get confirmation/denial about that one.

There isn't a data source I can share I'm afraid.

And Stellar Forge could change depending on what comes up.

Michael

 

[TornSoul]

There isn't a data source I can share I'm afraid.

And Stellar Forge could change depending on what comes up.

Michael

That's rather unfortunate (both of them).

But thank you for the direct reply here.

 

[wolverine2710]

That's rather unfortunate (both of them).
But thank you for the direct reply here.

Same here. I've to admit I'm amazed how fast he normally is being able to answer AND he IS reading the forums. Sometimes the PM responses are cryptic and short, as he is bound by his role as executive producer. But still we did get our coordinates for PB2 and forwards up to and including Gamma. That has made life so much easier. Again, Michael thanks a lot for helping us....

So we now know we basically are and will be aiming at a (slightly) moving target - even with and/or after release 1.0. We have to cope with that and I'm sure we will. I'm wondering what the consequence for TGC will be. TornSoul or anyone?

 

[Dejay]

There isn't a data source I can share I'm afraid.

And Stellar Forge could change depending on what comes up.

Michael

Imho it would be ideal if you'd make coordinates of the system / station you currently dock at together with the trade data through the companion web api.

3rd party tools for trading just make it so much more enjoyable and versatile. I tried writing down prices at stations I visit... I just can't do it. It feels like work.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

So we now know we basically are and will be aiming at a (slightly) moving target - even with and/or after release 1.0. We have to cope with that and I'm sure we will. I'm wondering what the consequence for TGC will be. TornSoul or anyone?

I think the best way would be to OCR the distances to stars in the navigation panel.

 

[TornSoul]

So we now know we basically are and will be aiming at a (slightly) moving target - even with and/or after release 1.0. We have to cope with that and I'm sure we will. I'm wondering what the consequence for TGC will be. TornSoul or anyone?

There are system name/coords combos that do not belong together in TGC.
Proven by the Pareco case. And it's unlikely to be the only case.

There might be some that don't exist anymore.
Etc.

I'm *guessing* it's a low percentage (or we'd have heard from more people).

But just how polluted TGC is atm (using the gamma data) is impossible to say.
And likewise, it's impossible to say, if current valid data will actually stay valid in perpetuity.

So apparently TGC will need to become a curated depository...

I for one do not want to have to be the one to fix stuff in TGC whenever changes to the Stellar Forge happens, for the next many many years (hopefully ED will exist a long time)


And frankly it irks me the wrong way that base system data (name/position) is not "fixed" - but can change.
That's just wrong for a persistent universe(/galaxy) - That ED is supposed to be.


So atm I'm not quite sure what to think tbh.

There are several options - None of which I particularly like.

I'll have to think it over for a bit - And also see what the rest of you think/suggests.