Legacy Sites

  • Last Post 29 May 2018
Hank posted this 02 January 2018

What sort of sites are these MIDAS, TMU or TAME?

If any site becomes decommissioned and no longer in the model will these be refereed to as "legacy trads sites" even though they were being used in webtris as well? 

What's the difference between an inactive site and an inactive legacy site?

Surely leaving them as an inactive TMU for instance would then help users like myself identify the site type?


Could there be a possibility of an active legacy site? If not why is this an option to be filtered by?

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
Paul Watkins posted this 08 January 2018


To provide some context ... when WebTRIS was first implemented it had data from April 2015 onwards. A project went ahead in 2016 to add historic data from TRADS which provided the historic data you'll see in the MIDAS/TAME/TMU layers.

In 2017 James (you'll have noticed his name on the forum, has moved on) noticed some TRADS data was missing from WebTRIS and a smaller project went ahead to rectify this. Most of the sites went into their respective MIDAS/TAME/TMU layers but there were 2398 sites which weren't so easy to either map, or be confident of their source type. Those sites were moved into the Legacy layer and not given any site type.

The Active and Inactive status is dependant on whether the site is in the current network model. If a site has dropped off the model it'll shift to be Inactive, if it's in the model it's Active. Additionally if a new site becomes active we wait until the next major model deployment before we include it so there's a period of time where the site is recording, but not on WebTRIS.

Agree the active legacy site filter shouldn't be there. I've asked our developer to look at removing it.


Hank posted this 09 January 2018

So for clarity, there should be no new sites in the legacy data set?

As for identifying the sites, all of the ones on the M42 are MIDAS by definition for example. Indeed, cross referencing them with the data held by your contractor Motts would enable a simple look up to identify the type...

Since the update however, there are now sites which are mapped as "legacy" where before they were another type. How can that occur given what you have said?

Paul Watkins posted this 11 January 2018

Do you have an example of where it's moved? There shouldn't be as they were simply missing before unless some sort of error occurred during the mapping process.


Hank posted this 11 January 2018

Surely this should be checked as part of the model import?

A5034, these were formerly in webtris as TMU sites if I recall correctly, they are now legacy sites. There maybe others but my Manchester Airport model is the one I'm working on.

Paul Watkins posted this 11 January 2018

Yes, validation was performed on the data before it was uploaded.

I've looked at 6 sites on the A5034. 4 of them are TMU sites, still listed as TMU and reporting as expected. 2 legacy sites were added and they have data consistent with them being marked as legacy sites (not reported since 2010). So nothing I can see there indicating a change, unless where I'm seeing legacy sites there were different sites there previously and it was recording data post 2015 -- is that what you saw?


Hank posted this 23 January 2018

Ah yes, 4 legacy sites and 4 TMUS, I didn;t have both layers on at the same time.


The sites also reference the wrong road owing to the detrunking, are they going to be renamed or continue to have a confusing name?

Paul Watkins posted this 25 January 2018

The naming convention isn't in our remit to control though it's possible we can ask the providers to review names. Next week I'm planning on having time off my usual workload to focus on various webtris issues. I'll try and work in some sort of quick review of names vs road numbering.

Hank posted this 21 March 2018

How did that review go?

Hank posted this 25 May 2018

Any feedback on that review you said you were going to do?

Paul Watkins posted this 29 May 2018

Hi Hank,

Yes I did a review of the link location names vs road numbers and the majority of them were accurately represented in the descriptions. I did find 154 cases where I'd question the way the names were written however. If you could provide me with the ones you're unhappy with I'll see if they're in the list, or whether they should be added.

Thanks, Paul