|
|
| Archive of MTA status updates (1280306) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (1280306) | |
Archive of MTA status updates |
|
|
Posted by LA Scott on Mon Mar 17 18:51:52 2014 I have started an archive of MTA status updates.http://boerumhillscott.com/transit/StatusUpdates.php It checks every minute, and if the status of description text is different from the last minute, it records the status. Before long, I'll put in a date filter to keep the page from getting too slow. |
|
|
| (1280402) | |
Re: Archive of MTA status updates |
|
|
Posted by GIS Man on Tue Mar 18 10:50:09 2014, in response to Archive of MTA status updates, posted by LA Scott on Mon Mar 17 18:51:52 2014. Nice. It works under Google Chrome, but not IE9.Bob |
|
|
| (1280413) | |
Re: Archive of MTA status updates |
|
|
Posted by Mark S. Feinman on Tue Mar 18 12:39:57 2014, in response to Archive of MTA status updates, posted by LA Scott on Mon Mar 17 18:51:52 2014. Nice. The BDFM lines have been running in Good Service since 1969 ....
Is that data actually provided from the MTA? --Mark |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1280450) | |
Re: Archive of MTA status updates |
|
|
Posted by LA Scott on Tue Mar 18 18:16:19 2014, in response to Re: Archive of MTA status updates, posted by GIS Man on Tue Mar 18 10:50:09 2014. Thank for letting me know about the IE 9 problem.I changed the code so it will hopefully work under IE 8+. I only have IE 11 at home to test on. |
|
|
| (1280451) | |
Re: Archive of MTA status updates |
|
|
Posted by LA Scott on Tue Mar 18 18:19:12 2014, in response to Re: Archive of MTA status updates, posted by Mark S. Feinman on Tue Mar 18 12:39:57 2014. OK, I feel silly.All of those entries with the 1969 date were where the MTA did not list a date. I had the code in place earlier to detect that, but somehow it got messed up before I finished the page. It should work now. For those who are wondering why that date was display, on Unix and similar system, time is measured in number of seconds from Jan 1 1970 GMT/UTC. |
|
|
| (1280468) | |
Re: Archive of MTA status updates |
|
|
Posted by Union Tpke on Tue Mar 18 20:14:05 2014, in response to Archive of MTA status updates, posted by LA Scott on Mon Mar 17 18:51:52 2014. Nice job! |
|
|
| (1280486) | |
Re: Archive of MTA status updates |
|
|
Posted by FYBklyn1959 on Tue Mar 18 22:27:33 2014, in response to Re: Archive of MTA status updates, posted by LA Scott on Tue Mar 18 18:19:12 2014. Interesting. At my former job, we had a system (RATEX) where the current date was calculated by the number of days since January 1, 1968 (I think it was January 1, I'm sure about the 1968 part). So no Y2K issues, the only problem was, we had a 4 digit field for the system date, and at one point, we turned over to 10,000, which of course the system recognized as 0000. Only problem was, some weekly sales reports blew up, but I found a way around it until the programmer could expand the field. Now, they are good to go until some time in the year 2242 :) (day # 100,000) |
|
|
| (1280501) | |
Re: Archive of MTA status updates |
|
|
Posted by LA Scott on Wed Mar 19 06:55:06 2014, in response to Re: Archive of MTA status updates, posted by FYBklyn1959 on Tue Mar 18 22:27:33 2014. Many current systems have a "Year 2032 problem," specifically on January 9 2038, 03:14:07 UTC, which is 2,147,483,647 seconds after January 1 1970.32 bit signed numbers "roll over" from 2,147,483,647 to -2,147,483,648 |
|
|
| (1280608) | |
Re: Archive of MTA status updates |
|
|
Posted by Mark S. Feinman on Wed Mar 19 13:49:58 2014, in response to Re: Archive of MTA status updates, posted by LA Scott on Tue Mar 18 18:19:12 2014. Heh, I figured as much. At least it wasn't SQL Server with its 1/1/1753 initial date :)--Mark |
|
|
| (1280828) | |
Re: Archive of MTA status updates |
|
|
Posted by GIS Man on Thu Mar 20 15:46:46 2014, in response to Re: Archive of MTA status updates, posted by LA Scott on Tue Mar 18 18:16:19 2014. Thanks. I just tried it now with IE9 and it works.Bob |
|
|
