New Meetinghouse Locator on LDS.org - Beta Release

[greenwoodkl]

It looks like you've requested directions. What did you enter for the starting address? I went to the same spot on Live Search Maps, but couldn't reproduce the problem.

Well, I can't reproduce it myself. When I first brought up the app and searched for my location, that is what I got. :p

[timheuer-p40]

great to see this finally come to pass! i remember the prototype i did a while back (http://tech.lds.org/forum/showpost.php? ... ostcount=8) which added boundary information -- any chance that is planned? i.e., select a ward once you see the meeting house and it highlights the geography served?

[borenmt]

There are apparently some security concerns about posting ward and stake boundaries, at least until we can authenticate users on the site. (Think like a burglar out on a Sunday drive in Utah and you'll get the idea.) So for now, there won't be ward boundaries on any public mapping sites.

[mkmurray]

There are apparently some security concerns about posting ward and stake boundaries, at least until we can authenticate users on the site. (Think like a burglar out on a Sunday drive in Utah and you'll get the idea.) So for now, there won't be ward boundaries on any public mapping sites.

At the present, your best option is for LUWS to house the ward boundry info, since it is authenitcating users.

[borenmt]

More discussion going on at http://www.ldsmediatalk.com/2008/06/19/ ... /#comments

[mkmurray]

More discussion going on at http://www.ldsmediatalk.com/2008/06/19/ ... /#comments

And if you follow one of the comment links over to Joel Dehlin's blog comments, you will see that Joel hinted at ward boundry lines "coming soon".

[aebrown]

And if you follow one of the comment links over to Joel Dehlin's blog comments, you will see that Joel hinted at ward boundry lines "coming soon".

True, but Joel posted that on June 22, and yet the following post from borenmt came later (on June 23).

There are apparently some security concerns about posting ward and stake boundaries, at least until we can authenticate users on the site. (Think like a burglar out on a Sunday drive in Utah and you'll get the idea.) So for now, there won't be ward boundaries on any public mapping sites.

So I wouldn't get my hopes up.

However, although I can really stretch and try to imagine the security concerns, I think that the concern is misplaced. The vast majority of burglars aren't aware of this mapping capability or smart enough to use it. For those who are aware and smart enough, the absence of boundary lines won't make one bit of difference. There is already enough information on the site to identify what streets (and even which precise houses, if they're patient enough) are in each ward. So because of a security concern which would have no more effect than locking every other door in a meetinghouse, we deny a significant benefit to all the members who can use it in helpful ways to help move the work forward. I don't get it.

[mkmurray]

True, but Joel posted that on June 22, and yet the following post from borenmt came later (on June 23).

I'm actually refuting borenmt's post with Joel's post because I believe borenmt is not in a position to say for sure the comment he made. I think he was just making an assumption based on evidence he gathered. I'm simply trying to show evidence to the contrary (especially from someone who is definitely in a position to say).

EDIT: No offense intended to borenmt; I just now saw that he is an Interaction Designer for the Church, so perhaps there is some knowledge he has that we don't (or doubtfully, that maybe even Joel doesn't have). However, from my understanding of the roles of Interaction Designers from the Tech Talks here in Utah a year and a half ago, I still hold that perhaps Joel might have the more sure knowledge. It appeared that the Interaction Designers were kind of the UI contractors for the various IT departments around the Church, chiefly responsible for UI design, layout, and interaction (mostly web too); I also got the impression that they were not involved in back-end implementations nor policy decisions.

Just trying to justify my assertion, but perhaps I am digging myself deeper...?

[RossEvans]

I see no conflict between borent's comments and those of Joel Dehlin. The former said there were perceived problems with publishing boundaries "at least until we can authenticate users on the site." Joel essentially confirmed that boundaries are "coming soon."

My reading of these comments together is that I hope and expect boundaries will be published in LUWS, where users are authenticated.

FWIW, I also agree with Alan_Brown -- I think the burglar scenario is a red herring. There is no real security in obscurity, only the illusion of such. Besides, to mix my metaphors even further, that horse has already left the barn. A Wasatch Front burglar casing a given street or house can already punch in the address to the new Meetinghouse Locator app, and learn directly about meeting schedules.

I suggest that people just lock their doors when they go to church..

[mkmurray]

I see no conflict between borent's comments and those of Joel Dehlin. The former said there were perceived problems with publishing boundaries "at least until we can authenticate users on the site." Joel essentially confirmed that boundaries are "coming soon."

My reading of these comments together is that I hope and expect boundaries will be published in LUWS, where users are authenticated.

Good point.