Ties in to #218 a bit:
Concurrently, this might be an opportunity to clean up the Route Stats table.
I like the somewhat cleaner appearance of CHM's HB. Compare...
http://tm.teresco.org/hb/?u=yakra&r=me.me206
http://cmap.m-plex.com/hb/hwymap.php?u=yakra&r=me.me206
In the case of ME206, the "ME ME206" label below the shield looks about the same.
But wait, there's more...
http://tm.teresco.org/hb/?u=yakra&r=tn.us041altnas
http://cmap.m-plex.com/hb/hwymap.php?r=tn.us041altnas
In the case of TN US41AltNas, we see that CHM conveniently includes the LIST Name right below the shield, whereas TM spells out the City name.
This has led to confusion for at least one user.
A layout more similar to CHM's format, without the LIST Name hidden down in the Route Stats table, would be nicer looking and less confusing IMO.
Ties in to #218 a bit:
Concurrently, this might be an opportunity to clean up the Route Stats table.
I like the somewhat cleaner appearance of CHM's HB. Compare...
http://tm.teresco.org/hb/?u=yakra&r=me.me206
http://cmap.m-plex.com/hb/hwymap.php?u=yakra&r=me.me206
In the case of ME206, the "ME ME206" label below the shield looks about the same.
But wait, there's more...
http://tm.teresco.org/hb/?u=yakra&r=tn.us041altnas
http://cmap.m-plex.com/hb/hwymap.php?r=tn.us041altnas
In the case of TN US41AltNas, we see that CHM conveniently includes the LIST Name right below the shield, whereas TM spells out the City name.
This has led to confusion for at least one user.
A layout more similar to CHM's format, without the LIST Name hidden down in the Route Stats table, would be nicer looking and less confusing IMO.