Difference between revisions of "User talk:Supernutorcrazy"

From SgWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(21 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 26: Line 26:
I hope you will support us to make these valuable information more accessible to all. Thank you.
I hope you will support us to make these valuable information more accessible to all. Thank you.


===Re: Exits===
== Sengkang / Punggol LRT Route Map, Plaform Layout ==


A round up to the nearest 5 minutes is a good gauge, especially when there are traffic conditions/walking speed that may give variations. I would agree to that.
No objections for Sengkang / Punggol LRT route to be entirely based on geological layout. Initially thought that the EWL Changi branch can also be my point of reference, but geological layout is more logical. For the subsequent LRT stations do we just only include the stations that are within the direction of travel within the loop + opposite loop?


However, for rail transfer between lines, I believe there is more room to study about it. Because I think what we have never looked into is the walking distance between the lines, as well as how different stations sync their train arrivals, which translates to different station layouts. Base on my personal experience at MacPherson and Chinatown, where the transfer platforms are close to one another, some of the train arrivals sync together.
Looking at the platform layouts, I believe we have more than enough space to implement the pictograms bah. Nothing comes to mind that any of the elevators/escalators, faregates, Passenger Service Centre would clash together in one layout. Ticketing machines should be easy to find unless the machines that only accept cash are hard to find within a station, so I don't think that would be a priority.  


In addition, when it comes peak hours, the frequency of trains may be shorter until one can get onto a train easily, just as the examples of the NSEWL transfer stations that you have stated. On the opposite hand during off peak hours, if one cannot get onto a train/bus that smoothly, this might take more than 10 mins waiting time. So I do not think an average of 10 min waiting time is sufficient enough for a disclaimer. I am not enough of a train expert but I would like to understand from your perspective whether my thoughts make sense.
I have two different takes on exit layouts. One is within the station concourse, and the other, the Locality maps that we are all familiar with. I personally feel that it is more important to indicate the exit locations within the concourse. As for Locality maps, would rather think of putting it on the Alternative Travel Methods pages of certain stations. Can disregard if the locality maps are very detailed in indicating bus stops eg. Maxwell, otherwise, maps that date back to the early 2010s eg. Chinatown, Boon Lay or lacking in detail really need some updated exit map guidance so that we can convey to them where the bus stops are.


I would strongly support the inclusion of escalators and lifts in the station layout so that people from all walks of life can find clearer and better barrier free access! :)
===Reply===
I think we are good to go with sticking with a single line option for an LRT layout so that there is a clear sense of direction. We will not need an entire loop.


====Update (8th Nov)====
And just nice! City Hall platform and concourse illustrations perfectly fit what we are looking for. I would strongly encourage to give this kind of design a go. Maybe you are right, provided if no size constraints on the wiki page, for an afterthought, we can consider putting the ticketing machine positions after we get everything laid out.
I did some tidying up of the notes at Bendemeer, Promenade and the future Khatib (with updated TEL transfer) pages. Apologies that I read wrongly few days ago, I realised you said that the average MRT waiting time is 5 mins. Since I can agree on this point, I have put it as a 3rd pointer for all 3 pages. As for miscellaneous pointers except for road closures, they have been tucked into the respective destination stations. See if this arrangement is neater for the eye.


Side note I do disagree with the bus part though, though feeder service waiting times are guaranteed to be less than 10 minutes, a handful of trunk services might exceed 10 mins of waiting time eg. 5, 14, 39, 58, 141, 169, 855 etc., in which some might offer just single deckers. Exceptions include 63, 65, 67, 190 where buses keep spamming. Considering the demographics of the towns where the stations are located at, some crowds won't disperse that easily within 20 mins if options were to include low frequency trunk services. That's why in the case of Khatib I made a special notice at the CBD destinations that if one cannot get onto 855 or 860 on time, CDS is last resort.  
You and I are also on the same page when it comes to Locality Map presentation. There is indeed lots of inconsistency in various stations. I had once wrote in asking the authorities and MRT operator to get the 2013 Chinatown map upgraded, they say they would, but I have not heard a word from them ever since, nor was it renewed. I believe getting every MRT/LRT station to have the newer TEL standard map will take eternity. Raffles Place map may have upgraded, but in turn did not reflect OCBC Bldg or Prudential Twr bus stops.  


Others like Chinese Garden or Maxwell, where conditions are still ok, I do as per normal. Also, thank you very much for the 3/88/89/109 idea, which made much more sense!
For a start, I think we can focus on just three details on a map on this wiki: Road Shape, Exit Alphabets/Numbers, and Bus Stops with numbers. Important amenities second, that would be an afterthought. In this way it will be less exhausting, and we can make better effort and productivity for make such map layouts for every station.


===Re: Walking distance between two nearby stations===
===Reply (11/1/2023)===
Road name, 5-digit bus stop code, the suggested visual markers and exit numbers as the main map details should work fine. Looking forward to implementation! Maybe we can try out City Hall first, the road shapes there are almost straight, and not really much development happening nearby. Do let me know how much time it takes to make such a sample map.


Yes, I had also thought about walking between two stations before. Same had applied to walking from Marina Bay to Bayfront. However, my main concern is getting people to have a familiar sense of direction, especially those with poor navigation skills. Coincidentally, I had one real life experience where I once had tried to explain to an elderly person how to walk from CPF Maxwell to Outram Park where SGH is at, and it was extremely frustrating that I eventually showed the way under my guidance. That has been one tricky part, you know HAHAHAHAHA. As you know, Maxwell is one of those places with poor bus connections, not even one to Outram, so it has been something I had tried to figure out. I would consider it lucky that Service 80 was amended to detour around Cantonment in Sengkang direction, at least something to connect to Maxwell with a direct transfer!
Oh and one more question, is the line layout supposed to like only reflect one station code at transfer stations?


Nonetheless if we want to include walking, I think we can just elaborate with road names people are familiar with, since Maxwell MRT Exit 3 is right at the entrance of Kreta Ayer Rd leading to New Bridge Rd.
Would like to seek advice. Thanks and regards.


====Update (12th Nov)====
===Reply (12/1/2023)===
Despite a lot of work to catch up, I made an experimental attempt to indicate walking directions for Maxwell and the new Marina Bay page. See if it works well.


===Adding travelling time/Choa Chu Kang===
In chemistry, only a suitable range of the amount of catalyst added will increase the rate of reaction. If we use an excessive amount of catalyst, there will be little effect on the rate of reaction.  
I have partially completed a study on the frequency of various bus services and waiting times at certain bus stops.  


Assuming number of bus services = x (including full day trunk variants)
Like how we have 200+ stations in Singapore, we will find that implementing locality map on an image graphic can be done within a year, which you say can use Photoshop for processing, and that might spur us in finishing the job. Even if editing means that we have to replace the image graphic, but assuming replacing the image graphic=same process as implementing image graphic first hand, few days of editing will still be worth it. On the opposite hand, we might find ourselves giving up halfway in implementing a wiki html, though initially it sounded tempting that a future edit would be easier, and that adds up to more than a decade and a half. That would be comparable to growing a gingko tree and waiting for it to bear fruit.


Some findings via the API arrivals show that when x=4, waiting time for bus services is shorter at 5 - 10 min range. If x=3, waiting time is as per normal at 10 - 15 min range, in sync with your point of 15 minutes maximum waiting time. So I came to a conclusion that:
I was also thinking, we can straightaway dive directly into exits numbers/layout to platform layout/concourse as one of the choices selected, since this type of implementation is also doable within the one day range. Looking forward to how the effect will look like so that we can compare.


*I concede that a PIE Stevens - BKE Woodlands travel time may not be as good as I think.
== Map progress ==


*A cluster of 20+ services in a CBD bus stop may not necessarily mean 20 min maximum travel, but 10 min maximum travel due to shorter waiting times of 5 mins.
Thanks for the update! Will this 5 min walking speed be the standard plan for all stations? Because I am about to plan to send over the map screenshots with all the required 5-digit stop codes(as remarks) reflected in the alternative travel pages.I will do my best to assist in this process.


*A few bus services have shorter waiting times than normal trunk/feeder services. Most schedules and frequencies remain unchanged during school days and holidays. I have come up with the following.
== Reply: Fleet Size of 912 ==
Hi.
 
I will leave the fleet size as 4 for now. As far as I know they only have 4 buses scheduled with 5 AP duties every day.
 
== Concourse and exit layout WIP ==
 
Bedok draft has been sketched from Photoshop, and I am on my way to collect more icons, and will make a visit to Admiralty probably next week to trial a similar layout.
 
Current elevator dimension is 160x160 on a side note.
 
As discussed before, I agree that there is indeed a need for a file sharing system, especially for icons. Thanks and Regards
 
== User : Draconite Dragon ==
 
Hi Admin,
 
I would like to bring your attention to this user : https://sgwiki.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Draconite_Dragon
 
 
On 30 Jun 2023, he claimed that SG6198L and SG6199J has been on 161 for a week on his talk page. As I am a regular passenger of Service 161, I have never seen these 2 buses perform any trips of 161.
 
(Link : https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Trunk_Services_160_-_169&diff=prev&oldid=584281)
 
 
He then removed SG6077C and SG6102M from 161. However, these 2 buses were still being spotted daily.
 
(Link for pictorial proof : https://www.instagram.com/p/Ct9AGtXxp8T/)


'''Trunk (5 - 10 mins)''': 36, 168, 190, 975


'''Feeder (3 - 7 mins)''': 807
After playing a cat and mouse game of undoing and redoing edits, he suddenly removed the two buses (SG6198L and SG6199J) from 161 and added them into 154, despite "saw it doing 161 for a week or more.". 


857 will continue to be studied in real life due to an inconsistency of missing buses in API arrival timings.
(Link : https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Trunk_Services_160_-_169&diff=prev&oldid=584379 and https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Trunk_Services_160_-_169&diff=prev&oldid=584379)


*I will make a list of bus stops with x>=4 bus services on my own page and list out the waiting times accordingly.


I have done a sample for Choa Chu Kang, awaiting your approval and comments before our mass implementation of travel times.
I believe this is not the only standalone case. The user has made many edits and some edits involved shuffling in buses into a service and then removing them a few hours later.  


== Regards about autoblock ==
(Link : https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Draconite_Dragon&offset=&limit=500&target=Draconite+Dragon)


Hi.


I just clarify that while editing the relevant pages, I got autoblocked by 7343Bus. So I just have to wait for the autoblock lapses right? Just clarifying because I never complete the relevant pages that I just need to do. In case you need autoblock ID, the number is #21221.
I believe his edits are just merely acts of vandalism, and those buses he proclaimed to be on whichever services, do not actually exist.
 
 
Please do take a while to look at his edits, as there are a lot of inconsistencies in his edits, which would cause a lot of reliability issues with the wiki.
 
Regards,
 
Haram
 
== Recent edits==
 
Hi admin,
 
Please kindly take a look at this user edits on service 5, user had placed false info on bus deployments and undoing them will make it hard for other users. There are more new accounts created like this. Thanks
 
https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Trunk_Services_2_-_9&action=history
 
== ItsRaboot ==
 
Hi, <br/>Would like to bring the above user's edits to your attention. They have edited the AWBDR CDGEs into the grey box section in the infobox, even though these units aren't deregistered yet. See https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Volvo_B9TL_(CDGE)&curid=7032&oldid=590814 . This is their 3rd time editing this, despite me & another user telling them not to. I would've reverted their edits if not for 3RR.<br/>Thanks,<br/>AirFan19
 
== User Weilong ==
 
Hi could you keep an eye on this user Weilong, his edits look dubious, plus he doesn't edit the relevant pages, not even sure if his edits are correct or not
 
== user:  Draconite Dragon ==
 
pls look into the edit for this user Draconite Dragon
 
all incomplete edit... alway fail to edit former deployment.
and even when he edit former deployment, the dates are all wrong (many are backdate to Jun 2023? or Dec 2023??)


Regards
seem like his edit are based on single day spotting.  alway have to undo his edit...
BusFan74

Revision as of 12:57, 11 March 2024

Rules for my feedback to stop irritate me.

  • Please kindly wait for up to 7 days unless stated otherwise for my reply to your feedback. No reply will be given if your feedback does not require reply or I could not answer to your feedback.
  • Please do not ask for general question like How to etc.
  • Please do not ask for permission to do something.
  • Please refrain from requesting to retrieved deleted article as excessive history will be cleared.
  • When requesting me to edit locked pages, please give either
    • Affected sections code
    • Advertisement in full
    • Affected parts to change in details.
    • Avoid statement like same as other vehicle
  • Please kindly indicate Autoblock ID if you have been affected from it.
  • I will not entertain any request under BCM transition.

Leave your message below

Rail Wiki Expansion

Hi Supernutorcrazy,

Is it OK to add info of train deployments (including TRNs and their sequences), acronyms legend and train fleet info (similar to what's done for buses)?
Data can be obtained from here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PMuCeF31etWzPv_U42qMaFoHvYwDpnkSWHgjvuuTxdg/edit
All data collated in the above document are based on spottings and observations from fellow enthusiasts.

I hope you will support us to make these valuable information more accessible to all. Thank you.

Sengkang / Punggol LRT Route Map, Plaform Layout

No objections for Sengkang / Punggol LRT route to be entirely based on geological layout. Initially thought that the EWL Changi branch can also be my point of reference, but geological layout is more logical. For the subsequent LRT stations do we just only include the stations that are within the direction of travel within the loop + opposite loop?

Looking at the platform layouts, I believe we have more than enough space to implement the pictograms bah. Nothing comes to mind that any of the elevators/escalators, faregates, Passenger Service Centre would clash together in one layout. Ticketing machines should be easy to find unless the machines that only accept cash are hard to find within a station, so I don't think that would be a priority.

I have two different takes on exit layouts. One is within the station concourse, and the other, the Locality maps that we are all familiar with. I personally feel that it is more important to indicate the exit locations within the concourse. As for Locality maps, would rather think of putting it on the Alternative Travel Methods pages of certain stations. Can disregard if the locality maps are very detailed in indicating bus stops eg. Maxwell, otherwise, maps that date back to the early 2010s eg. Chinatown, Boon Lay or lacking in detail really need some updated exit map guidance so that we can convey to them where the bus stops are.

Reply

I think we are good to go with sticking with a single line option for an LRT layout so that there is a clear sense of direction. We will not need an entire loop.

And just nice! City Hall platform and concourse illustrations perfectly fit what we are looking for. I would strongly encourage to give this kind of design a go. Maybe you are right, provided if no size constraints on the wiki page, for an afterthought, we can consider putting the ticketing machine positions after we get everything laid out.

You and I are also on the same page when it comes to Locality Map presentation. There is indeed lots of inconsistency in various stations. I had once wrote in asking the authorities and MRT operator to get the 2013 Chinatown map upgraded, they say they would, but I have not heard a word from them ever since, nor was it renewed. I believe getting every MRT/LRT station to have the newer TEL standard map will take eternity. Raffles Place map may have upgraded, but in turn did not reflect OCBC Bldg or Prudential Twr bus stops.

For a start, I think we can focus on just three details on a map on this wiki: Road Shape, Exit Alphabets/Numbers, and Bus Stops with numbers. Important amenities second, that would be an afterthought. In this way it will be less exhausting, and we can make better effort and productivity for make such map layouts for every station.

Reply (11/1/2023)

Road name, 5-digit bus stop code, the suggested visual markers and exit numbers as the main map details should work fine. Looking forward to implementation! Maybe we can try out City Hall first, the road shapes there are almost straight, and not really much development happening nearby. Do let me know how much time it takes to make such a sample map.

Oh and one more question, is the line layout supposed to like only reflect one station code at transfer stations?

Would like to seek advice. Thanks and regards.

Reply (12/1/2023)

In chemistry, only a suitable range of the amount of catalyst added will increase the rate of reaction. If we use an excessive amount of catalyst, there will be little effect on the rate of reaction.

Like how we have 200+ stations in Singapore, we will find that implementing locality map on an image graphic can be done within a year, which you say can use Photoshop for processing, and that might spur us in finishing the job. Even if editing means that we have to replace the image graphic, but assuming replacing the image graphic=same process as implementing image graphic first hand, few days of editing will still be worth it. On the opposite hand, we might find ourselves giving up halfway in implementing a wiki html, though initially it sounded tempting that a future edit would be easier, and that adds up to more than a decade and a half. That would be comparable to growing a gingko tree and waiting for it to bear fruit.

I was also thinking, we can straightaway dive directly into exits numbers/layout to platform layout/concourse as one of the choices selected, since this type of implementation is also doable within the one day range. Looking forward to how the effect will look like so that we can compare.

Map progress

Thanks for the update! Will this 5 min walking speed be the standard plan for all stations? Because I am about to plan to send over the map screenshots with all the required 5-digit stop codes(as remarks) reflected in the alternative travel pages.I will do my best to assist in this process.

Reply: Fleet Size of 912

Hi.

I will leave the fleet size as 4 for now. As far as I know they only have 4 buses scheduled with 5 AP duties every day.

Concourse and exit layout WIP

Bedok draft has been sketched from Photoshop, and I am on my way to collect more icons, and will make a visit to Admiralty probably next week to trial a similar layout.

Current elevator dimension is 160x160 on a side note.

As discussed before, I agree that there is indeed a need for a file sharing system, especially for icons. Thanks and Regards

User : Draconite Dragon

Hi Admin,

I would like to bring your attention to this user : https://sgwiki.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Draconite_Dragon


On 30 Jun 2023, he claimed that SG6198L and SG6199J has been on 161 for a week on his talk page. As I am a regular passenger of Service 161, I have never seen these 2 buses perform any trips of 161.

(Link : https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Trunk_Services_160_-_169&diff=prev&oldid=584281)


He then removed SG6077C and SG6102M from 161. However, these 2 buses were still being spotted daily.

(Link for pictorial proof : https://www.instagram.com/p/Ct9AGtXxp8T/)


After playing a cat and mouse game of undoing and redoing edits, he suddenly removed the two buses (SG6198L and SG6199J) from 161 and added them into 154, despite "saw it doing 161 for a week or more.".

(Link : https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Trunk_Services_160_-_169&diff=prev&oldid=584379 and https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Trunk_Services_160_-_169&diff=prev&oldid=584379)


I believe this is not the only standalone case. The user has made many edits and some edits involved shuffling in buses into a service and then removing them a few hours later.

(Link : https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Draconite_Dragon&offset=&limit=500&target=Draconite+Dragon)


I believe his edits are just merely acts of vandalism, and those buses he proclaimed to be on whichever services, do not actually exist.


Please do take a while to look at his edits, as there are a lot of inconsistencies in his edits, which would cause a lot of reliability issues with the wiki.

Regards,

Haram

Recent edits

Hi admin,

Please kindly take a look at this user edits on service 5, user had placed false info on bus deployments and undoing them will make it hard for other users. There are more new accounts created like this. Thanks

https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Trunk_Services_2_-_9&action=history

ItsRaboot

Hi,
Would like to bring the above user's edits to your attention. They have edited the AWBDR CDGEs into the grey box section in the infobox, even though these units aren't deregistered yet. See https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Volvo_B9TL_(CDGE)&curid=7032&oldid=590814 . This is their 3rd time editing this, despite me & another user telling them not to. I would've reverted their edits if not for 3RR.
Thanks,
AirFan19

User Weilong

Hi could you keep an eye on this user Weilong, his edits look dubious, plus he doesn't edit the relevant pages, not even sure if his edits are correct or not

user: Draconite Dragon

pls look into the edit for this user Draconite Dragon

all incomplete edit... alway fail to edit former deployment. and even when he edit former deployment, the dates are all wrong (many are backdate to Jun 2023? or Dec 2023??)

seem like his edit are based on single day spotting. alway have to undo his edit...

Retrieved from "https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Supernutorcrazy&oldid=605337"