Hi,
I don’t normally edit with landmarks on (bit too slow) but while working on the A11 bypass I came across these: https://www.waze.com/editor/#?zoom=3&lat=52.35145&lon=0.53949&layers=1957&env=row
They all appear to not have a name or description, but there are a lot of forests/groves in this area which are available to the public and I think should be mapped.
Should I leave or remove them? I’m not really having a go at the editor as they are all technically correct.
Advice…
Waaaaaaaaayyyy too much detail - both in terms of boundaries and number of landmarks.
Whilst it’s nice to map a boundary really accurately, Waze simply won’t show the edges of a landmark in anything like as much detail as has been used here. So the boundaries could be much simplified, reducing the number of geometry points and the time take to draw them in the editor (which isn’t insignificant).
It is also crazy to split wooded areas up like this. Half the boundaries will probably be blurred over in the App and what’s left probably doesn’t look good. Most of these individual landmarks should be drastically consolidated.
Let me say, I am a fan of mapping wooded areas near roads. It gives context to the view you see on the app - the better the app visually matches the surroundings, the more subconscious confidence you have in it. But going into too much detail faces a law of diminishing returns far quicker than you might expect.
I suggest you send a PM to the editor concerned - perhaps invite him to join the discussion here? Someone who’s willing to go to that sort of effort could probably do much more useful work. 
Hi,
One does wonder why the wooded areas have been segmented and compartmentalised. He could have gone whole hog and drawn the individual trees…
Drag him to the forum, kicking and screaming if necessary so Iain can tutor him…
Des. . . 
I like blue and green as reference points on the map too … but this is a new (excessive) level of OCD.
Did anyone PM this editor?
Dave, I’ll PM them later today when I get home.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Aww, so no-one liked what I’d done?
Point taken though, in all seriousness. I’d just like to make it clear, though, that it’s done the way it’s done because I’ve had issues in the editor when it comes to drawings large landmarks sometimes. It’s a little irritating to draw something only for the editor to refuse to save it, hence why I’ve drawn things in small bits like this. Makes it easy to do a little bit then come back some other time and do a bit more. If it’s causing issues in the client then please feel free to delete them. Failing that, wait a while and I’ll attempt to redraw the whole area in a more simple fashion.
Regarding the level of detail; again, I take your point. I realise that the client doesn’t render the maps in the level of detail that I’ve used, but I figure there’s nothing to say it might not in the future. Please feel free to correct me if I’ve wrong, however.
At the end of the day, I figured that the map was a little bare of detail, especially if you glance over the continent and see how green France, Belgium and the Netherlands look. As has been pointed out, it does help to subtly enhance confidence in the map and having a few more identifiable landmarks can’t hurt in that sense. However, I’m more than prepared to back off a little if need be.
This normally happens when you cross the lines of a landmark. Annoyingly, sometimes (though not always) even undoing your action will still result in a save error and only refreshing/permalinking to start again clears it.
YMMV, I’m sure there are other ways to get a save error for a landmark.
hhehe…PJHanson, you are not alone. See what I did :mrgreen:
https://www.waze.com/editor/#?%23%3F=&zoom=3&lat=55.21197&lon=-2.02048&layers=1957&env=row
One day I got bored and did that. Sure normally I wouldn’t do that :mrgreen:
I added loads of forests around East Sussex, I think they definitely improve the map and I would encourage people to do the same to their areas!
I normally don’t go into as much detail as in this case though