I wish I did know better. :lol:
I’m keeping a log of every one I do. If someone comes back and says I should be treating ‘No of CS’ as number of connectors and not number of devices then it’s not going to be too difficult to go back and edit them.
What you’ll find is that there are very few PURs that don’t have something wrong with them. We have all started out like yourself with good intentions and logged every minor issue as a problem, they realised that it takes too much time and energy.
As long as the location and name is correct, all other details can be updated later by users. Now I only mark locations as a problem if the PUR is missing, wildly out of position, or similar.
Sounds like a plan. It seems to be every other one that’s problematic.
See, my belief was that the document lists number of connectors, the PUR’s have devices and number of connectors. The issue is each company has different methods of listing their assets and I don’t think Waze has fully assessed this. For example:
You could have a singular EV (Like one of the Be.EV’s) - that is one device but has two connectors. This could be listed as two connectors on one device or two devices.
Here is where it gets confusing now, because sites have the ability to log “in use”/“Not Responding” etc - and give live status updates to users - they cannot be the same device, otherwise essentially if one connector is in use it would report that device as busy when in reality it has a spare connector unused. This is where I think some companies have listed each connector as a unique device.
I’ve been checking each PUR, ensuring that the number of devices have the correct number of connectors and approving if it matches - I’ve only been listing problem if its been 1 device and 12 connectors which is impossible. I echo Chris’ way of thinking - if you critically analyse each PUR it is going to drive you crazy and also I’m sure anything with an alcohol content will look more and more appealing. I’d be red flagging the ones that are just incorrect, missing or the data is just wonderland , the ones that have the right ratio of connections and devices I would approve.
Just remember - we’re racing to 50% so the difficult ones have to wait 
I haven’t really found out what ‘No of CS’ actually relates to - could be ‘Charge Stations’ (devices at the site) or total number of ‘Connection Sockets’. If you think about it too much, what you said about the status of each socket would require us to then give separate numbers of each type of connector, as users are generally only going be looking for the availability of one or two socket types. That data has to come from the operator as half the time we’re just guessing otherwise.
Therefore, with seeing other editors counting them differently, I’ve decided to go for the higher-level number of devices, rather than sockets. I’m just worried that without us all doing it the correct way (whatever that may be) we’re maybe making work for ourselves further down the line.
As already stated, kindly concentrate on approving PURs. Details such as speed, number of chargers, number of connectors, payment method. can be corrected at a later date but users. Our aim is to reach 50% mapping so that the feature can be released in the UK.
In the Office Hours we were told by Waze to treat all information about the EVCS as trusted as it was supplied to them by their data provider.
Yes. I’ve given up worrying what ‘No of CS’ on the Gsheet actually stands for. Nobody seems to know. Approving the ones I can locate correctly and identify as public/restricted/private is what I’m going for.
I’m not stressing about the number of spaces/connectors/whatever apart from (I think) one operator for which I found several location where the number in the sheet was 1 but there was clearly more spaces/connectors/whatever than that. I marked them as Problem with a comment but I don’t think I attempted to correct the number without facts/understanding.
Regards
Martin
Do we know if anyone in HQ is reviewing these problems we’re flagging? In particular, the ones where we cannot find any evidence of a charger and are leaving the PUR as unapproved. Now that the feed in WME is much improved, I’ve gone from working from the GSheet to the PUR list because WME knows my editing areas and the GSheet doesn’t (don’t worry, I’m using James’ overlay so I know which row each PUR relates to 
). However, doing it this way means I’m ending up with lots of unapproved PURs at the top of the to do list and I keep clicking on ones I’ve already looked at multiple times. It would be good if we could start rejecting some.
Hi all, sorry for not updating here earlier, I have been busy elsewhere.
I will chase HQ to see what is happening about the problem issues and see when we can expect some action. I would suspect we will not see anything on this until we hit the 50% point and it goes live in the UK.
In the meantime, has anyone got their own areas clear / under control and fancy a temporary additional area. We still have a lot of counties where there has been little progress and could do with some assistance. The initial enthusiasm has definitely dropped off and we need to somehow get back to pushing this to the half way point. If so, please put in a AM request for the area you fancy helping with.
Thanks
Not just yet. Think I still have 150+ in my areas but getting through them. Would be able to do more if I didn’t have up to 50 URs to get through every day.
I’ve only just come across this but when there are duplicate PURs and I accept them both and flag accordingly, I used to be able to put them next to each other in the correct location where the chargers are, but now I can’t. Not sure if this is due to the recent WME update but I can’t put them next to each other. I have to leave a gap of around 180+ feet. Any ideas?
You can’t have 2 places named the same close to each other, change one of them to match the naming convention we are using for EVCS and leave the other as the imported name and they can then be placed together.
It should be noted that you shouldn’t be setting a navigation point for EVCS as we expect Waze to navigate users to the actual place point location.
This is news to me. Where is this mentioned on wazeopedia?
Is it me or has the EVCS stuff in the app gone live in the UK even though we still haven’t reached 50%? Just looking at one in south Wales and someone has submitted a picture of it, which to me means the places are surfaced in the app? Sure enough, looking at the app you can now tell it what plug type you’re looking for…
“While I’m here”, there used to be an option in the app to say whether you wanted diesel or petrol but I can’t find it any more. AIUI that’s a country feature that the admins can turn on/off - why has it been turned off in the UK or am I missing something else?
Thanks
Martin
Seems so. I can change my vehicle to electric, turn on EV features and select my plug types.
Had one where I saw that a L2 had manage to approve it!
Should we keep going with working through the list?
Please keep going with this. I am not sure what happened about the L2. but I have seen some where a picture has been added and the charger seems to have been approved at the same time. This may be what has happened.
I’ve told my brother-in-law who has an EV that this stuff is now live and he says he can’t see the options in his copy of Waze. Is it perhaps only visible to beta testers? Or Editors? or people with an R in their first name?
I advised him to check he was up to date and he didn’t say he wasn’t…
Thanks
Martin
Not sure what is happening. I have Android beta and can now turn on the EV options, but then nothing further happens. I do not have the option to tell Waze I am in an EV or find any charging points. It looks like Waze have done the usual half cocked partial release.