Hi, why the “state” property is disabled in the international editor? I am from Peru and our administrative division is:
Regions -> Provinces -> Districts.
In the map we are using the “District” as “City” but what about Province and Regions?
I agree that it should be allowed on International server, but as far as Waze is concerned each country is the equivalent to a US state.
In the UK we have Counties and it would be better if we could record them in a field of their own. Instead when editing the city field editors add the county name in brackets afterwards. E.g. ‘Basingstoke (Hants)’. It’s not ideal.
We have requested this many times over the last couple of years. Seems to fall on deaf ears!
Waze has clearly thought about this: http://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3534#p25765
But, as far as I can see, the state divisions are only used to divide wazers into their home groups for points and ranking purposes. Waze seems to be going away from using the road properties as a basis for searching for or routing to locations. So it may be that there is little benefit to add this information at this point.
No, it means we have to add regionalisations into city names which clutters the map! I would disagree that they’ve clearly thought about it!
I didn’t mean they thought about it clearly.
Clearly thought about it vs. thought about it clearly… ? 
Hmm, fair enough. It’s frustrating. We’ve all but campaigned for it. Don’t understand why it can’t be used, Database field is clearly there as we have to put “Other” in there to make it accept other fields!
Yes, this is true.
I feel your pain. I was originally trying to compose a much more snarky post regarding the statement over 2 years ago that they were “very (very) close” to adding this feature, but didn’t think what I wrote would have gone over so well. Didn’t occur to me that playing it straight wouldn’t go over so well either.
The state field is also desperately needed in Spain. There are soooo many repeated city names.
Enviado desde mi GT-I9100 usando Tapatalk 2
Maybe Waze just doesn’t want to invest the time to add and maintain a list of states for every country world-wide? We can’t add a state in the USA, we only get to choose from the states that are populated in the database. So if Waze would continue with the same methodology they need to populate every state in every country where they will support this.
As already mentioned in this thread, with POI and address lookups being external in base-mapped countries that state field doesn’t have any valuable significance anyway. The city name shows up on the map itself and reports, but the state doesn’t show anywhere.
The only place that I can think of where the state is being referenced in the USA is in the scoreboard by state. Yes, it’s nice if you follow your rank and points. Necessary, no. In fact, if Waze wanted to remove the state field entirely and could add a toll road check box instead, I would be all for that!
I also map in Mexico. Yes, having to choose state ‘other’ is highly annoying. They should get rid of that if they are not going to implement states in other countries.
To sum it all up - as Waze works the state field just isn’t necessary. As I read elsewhere in the past, we are creating maps that allow us to navigate with Waze, not to have perfect maps.
I’ve stated only a few posts above why it’s necessary!!
via Tapatalk
To reference Darren, we have no divisor for 4 countries, or States in the UK; England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In each state are counties. In each state, and between counties, numerous towns and cities have the same name so we have to piss about putting the County in brackets for fear of duplication or MASSIVE smudges (not so relevant now I know). His point is very valid, and one that needs serious thinking about. We can provide lists of counties, provinces, states etc ourselves. All they have to do is populate the SQL db with it. The field is obviously already there.
Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2
Well it sounds like duplicate cities names is bigger than a Waze problem. So there are never duplicate city names in the same state? :?
Isn’t is going to be a difficult job for Waze to reassign every segment that is already assigned to the state of ‘other’ to the correct state? They will need to know every single segment ID and which state it belongs to.
Actually, there are. Waze’s default way of handling them in basemapped countries was to call them City, City(2), City(3), etc. This invariably leads to complaints from users in City(2) about how City(2) is bigger/older/more important than City, and if anything City should be City(2) so City(2) can be City. Which of course is the editor’s responsibility to change. So the problem won’t go away entirely, but the potential for the map looking better is there.
I doubt it. Every segment is geotagged in the db. But creating “state” (the field needs a new title) polygons would still be labor intensive unless they could import them.
So if every segment is geotagged in the db, why is Waze having such as hard time removing the Portola Valley city name from segments that are not in the proper area? You requested it months ago and it’s still not done.
If they can’t effectively remove one city name in one country how in the heck are they going to add thousands of states around the world and get all of the segments assigned to the proper state and city in that state?
Although shouldn’t this be very easy for Waze to fix in the DB? Just replace City(2) in State A with City New? The map editors should not have to manually fix this type of issue.
Yup, and we always have to find stupid workarounds for this. In some parts of Germany you will find streetnames two or three times in different parts of the same city.
Because to them it’s just not important. They don’t edit maps (well, some of them do, badly) so they don’t experience these annoyances firsthand. As long as X% of users can get from point A to point B without complaining, everything is perfect.
Are we talking can, or will here? Maybe I misunderstood your argument. All of this would be possible, if a different set of priorities were in place.
Should be easy, yes. Possible, if they’re pushed hard enough. Likely, no.
Actually editors can’t manually fix the problem; I was speaking from the POV of the user who drops angry URs all over the place. After giving up on Support I tried manually fixing one incorporated village that shared its name with a small resort-ish development. Changed every segment in the village from City(2) to City, and changed every segment in the other place from City to null. But City and City(2) still show on the map where these places are.