Hi, I have been driving around with Waze quite a bit, and have done some edits. Love it!
In any case, I don’t understand why certain areas are labeled “Greater ____ Area” where ____ is the name of a town. This isn’t really correct in New Hampshire, since every location is either in one town or another. Its not like certain states where you have large areas that are in unincorporated locations. Anyway, I think this is not a good idea in NH, I have even seen a lot of roads tagged as in “Greater ____ Area” when in fact they should be just in the town. I was wondering if I am missing something, or if this has been discussed before. Does anyone at a higher level in the Waze community have an ability to update this on more of a global level? If I am building new roads, should I stick to the convention of whatever road I am connecting to as to whether to call it Greater ___ Area vs. the actual town? To me its going to be tough to tell, since there seems to be no rhyme or reason to what constitutes a “greater ___ area” in NH vs. what is in a town.
I’m not 100% certain but I’d guess that was imported. I agree that the “greater” just confuses things. I’d suspect the only way to clear it up would be to change all components within areas labeled “greater” simply to the town/city name (roads, places, etc…) …gah… that’s an undertaking!
I wonder if the city merge/change/remove form would be the proper way to get these areas fixed.
Just merge Greater Milford Area with Milford, for example.
-Ben
Be careful with the use of the City Merge/Change form. Waze is either changing the name of the “Greater ### Area” to the actual city name, giving us two separate instances of the city, or deleting the “Greater ### Area” all together, leaving a hole in the city layer.
Anyway, with Hudson, I submitted that more than a year ago, and I don’t see any change. Given the possibility that the staff could have made things worse, I guess that’s a good thing.