I have been in dispute for some time with a small group of editors promoting the concept of personal rapid transit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit), a proposed for of rapid transit. The major problem is that the article describes the features of a wide-scale implementation, but the few pilot projects have been on a much smaller scale and exhibit few of the features promoted as inherent by PRT proponents (such as very short headways, in the sub-second range and very large numbers of cars, to make waiting times short).
We've succeeded in pruning most of the hyperbole from the PRT article, but there is a particular concept version, UniModal, which was redirected once per AfD and DRV (despite massive involvement from new and anonymous editors, if you get my drift) but which User:Fresheneesz in particular is keen to have. It has reappeared again at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UniModal, replete with claims of massive top speeds, fantastically low build and operating costs etc. I have pruned it down to a couple of verifiable paragraphs, but I just know that the usual war is going to result.
I am always open to the possibility I may be wrong. It may be that we *like* to have large articles on hypothetical concepts for which the originators are vigorously pitching for funding. On the other hand, we might not. My reading of [[WP:V]] says not. But I'd appreciate another set of eyes.
Fresheneesz's version is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UniModal&oldid=57664644
Guy (JzG)
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 08:21:26 +0100, you wrote:
On a related note, this diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Personal_rapid_transit&diff=57... shows the difference in tone between my view of it and the PRT proponents'. A lot of hyperbole seems to have crept back in while I was not watching the article. So much for trying not to [{WP:OWN]] things...
For example, almost every instance of "are" should be replaced by "would be" since no large scale implementation has ever existed.
Guy (JzG)
On 6/9/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
For example, almost every instance of "are" should be replaced by "would be" since no large scale implementation has ever existed.
Fwiw, I don't necessarily agree. Take this paragraph: -- One possible control algorithm places vehicles in imaginary moving "slots" that go around the loops of track. Real vehicles are allocated a slot by track-side controllers. On-board computers maintain their position by using a negative feedback loop to stay near the center of the commanded slot. One way vehicles can keep track of their position is by integrating the input from speedometers, using periodic check points to compensate for cumulative errors. -- I don't have a problem with "Real vehicles are allocated..." when we have already made clear that the system is "possible". We describe how things *do* work in the fictional system. This does not seem very different to me than saying "Under the proposed foobar download management system, users are charged for each download..."
Just my humble opinion. (when was the last time you saw that written out?)
Steve
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 11:08:20 +0200, you wrote:
I don't have a problem with "Real vehicles are allocated..." when we have already made clear that the system is "possible". We describe how things *do* work in the fictional system. This does not seem very different to me than saying "Under the proposed foobar download management system, users are charged for each download..."
Sure, some of the text is OK. Some is not. For example, the first para of the overview stated that it was a system serving a wide area, but not one of the pilots (including the two in build) does this - they all serve a small number of destinations from a possibly larger number of embarkation points.
Guy (JzG)
On 6/9/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Sure, some of the text is OK. Some is not. For example, the first para of the overview stated that it was a system serving a wide area, but not one of the pilots (including the two in build) does this - they all serve a small number of destinations from a possibly larger number of embarkation points.
Ok, I wasn't vouching for the validity or neutrality of the article as a whole :) I recall having read it previously and being quite impressed at the ingeniousness of these ideas...
Steve
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 15:54:24 +0200, you wrote:
I recall having read it previously and being quite impressed at the ingeniousness of these ideas...
Indeed. Like all conjuring tricks, as long as you don't look up the magician's sleeve it all appears very slick :-)
Guy (JzG)
On 6/9/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 15:54:24 +0200, you wrote:
I recall having read it previously and being quite impressed at the ingeniousness of these ideas...
Indeed. Like all conjuring tricks, as long as you don't look up the magician's sleeve it all appears very slick :-)
Hell, I don't care if it ever happens. It's just like reading Star Wars for me. :)
Steve
I've noticed those guys before. Unlike many proposed transport technologies, Personal Rapid Transit seems to be more a political proposal than a technical one; thus, it seems to be characterised by relentless publicity pressure and an excessive dedication to burying any suggestions of its flaws.
IMO, UniModal is a proposal without a hope in hell, and insufficiently different from other PRT ideas to have its own article.
-Matt
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 00:37:54 -0700, you wrote:
IMO, UniModal is a proposal without a hope in hell, and insufficiently different from other PRT ideas to have its own article.
So you say. But my reduction to a short and hopefully factual treatment was rapidly reverted to the old version replete with claims of projected running costs of $0.01 to $0.02 per pod-mile and other speculation.
No patents, no prototype, no backers, no systems in production. Feel free to nominate for deletion if you think that means it's functionally unverifiable :-)
Guy (JzG)