# Level 3: Santa Cruz, CA
**URL:** https://www.waze.com/discuss/t/level-3-santa-cruz-ca/199472
**Category:** US Unlock And Update Requests
**Created:** [September 16, 2014, 6:18pm UTC](https://www.waze.com/discuss/t/level-3-santa-cruz-ca/199472 "2014-09-16T18:18:41Z")
**Posts on this page:** 10
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@bwawsc](https://www.waze.com/discuss/u/bwawsc)
#### Post date: [September 16, 2014, 6:18pm UTC](https://www.waze.com/discuss/t/level-3-santa-cruz-ca/199472/1 "2014-09-16T18:18:41Z")
[https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lon=-122.00953&lat=36.98049&layers=133&zoom=6&segments=71712552,81671799,71712550,71712549](https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lon=-122.00953&lat=36.98049&layers=133&zoom=6&segments=71712552,81671799,71712550,71712549)
This parking lot road connects to two streets that are level 3 locked: Soquel and Water. It was incorrectly shown as one-way. I have fixed the parking lot road but can’t fix its turn restrictions (and the incorrect turn restrictions on Soquel) since I am Level 1[edit] - now level 2[/edit].
[edit]Fixed URL to show the segments I need unlocked.[/edit]
---
### Author:  [@DwarfLord](https://www.waze.com/discuss/u/DwarfLord)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2014, 5:50pm UTC](https://www.waze.com/discuss/t/level-3-santa-cruz-ca/199472/2 "2014-09-29T17:50:55Z")
Are you certain this parking-lot road is two-way? The satellite image shows the southern end as having two driving-direction arrows and they are both pointed out to Soquel Ave. All the parking stalls are angled for southbound traffic, none for northbound traffic. Those circumstances strongly suggest a one-way parking-lot road. Has the area been re-striped since the satellite photo was taken?
(Edit: And, Street View from the Soquel Ave connection shows a sign marked “ONE WAY / DO NOT ENTER”. Could you say what leads you to feel strongly that this is a two-way? I have been by it recently but did not pay attention :mrgreen: )
---
### Author:  [@bwawsc](https://www.waze.com/discuss/u/bwawsc)
#### Post date: [September 30, 2014, 3:54am UTC](https://www.waze.com/discuss/t/level-3-santa-cruz-ca/199472/3 "2014-09-30T03:54:34Z")
So now that you ask, and I drove through it again, it isn’t really two way. But the one right next to it (one row to the left) goes through as well, one-way at Soquel and 2-way at Water. I knew I had driven through both ways. Between them, there is a 2-way route, which is what I was remembering, but not very clearly. What would you suggest? Leave it as it was, add the second driveway, or treat it like a physically split road represented as a single 2-way road?
---
### Author:  [@DwarfLord](https://www.waze.com/discuss/u/DwarfLord)
#### Post date: [September 30, 2014, 6:47am UTC](https://www.waze.com/discuss/t/level-3-santa-cruz-ca/199472/4 "2014-09-30T06:47:32Z")
> [@bwawsc](#):
>
> …the one right next to it (one row to the left) goes through as well, one-way at Soquel and 2-way at Water…Between them, there is a 2-way route
I’ve squinted as hard as I can at the satellite image and I do not see a connection between the parking immediately to the left (west) and the parking-lot road that you linked.
The general problem with adding parking-lot roads is that, especially in areas with large buildings or estates that are set deeply away from the main roads, if you add one PLR you have to add another one to keep from distorting routing. But then that new PLR means you have to add another PLR, and another, and another, like dominoes. Sometimes there isn’t any way around that, though, and this may be one of those times.
It is particularly nice to mark PLRs that go through between one major road and another, so people who start in that lot are given the best route out. If you want to add those in this area that seems like it would be OK. I can help connect them when them the time comes. We need to be very sure about getting the one-way segments correct though or we’ll make things worse instead of better 😛
---
### Author:  [@bwawsc](https://www.waze.com/discuss/u/bwawsc)
#### Post date: [September 30, 2014, 3:43pm UTC](https://www.waze.com/discuss/t/level-3-santa-cruz-ca/199472/5 "2014-09-30T15:43:00Z")
I’ll drive around there this afternoon and come up with a new proposal.
---
### Author:  [@bwawsc](https://www.waze.com/discuss/u/bwawsc)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2014, 4:26pm UTC](https://www.waze.com/discuss/t/level-3-santa-cruz-ca/199472/6 "2014-10-01T16:26:30Z")
OK, I think I have these parking lot roads represented correctly now (except for the connections to Water and Soquel). Let me know what you think.
[edit]Never mind - I see you made the connections and polished it off. Thanks again.[/edit]
---
### Author:  [@DwarfLord](https://www.waze.com/discuss/u/DwarfLord)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2014, 4:34pm UTC](https://www.waze.com/discuss/t/level-3-santa-cruz-ca/199472/7 "2014-10-01T16:34:24Z")
Looks good, although the southern outlet of the PLR from the Staff of Life appears to be one-way. I base that on the narrow width of the road and the fact that the STOP painted on it is centered rather than offset. I set it to be one-way and have connected all roads.
By the way, our state manager took a passing interest in the area and was curious about the timed restrictions on the PLRs. Time-restricted PLRs are pretty uncommon. On reflection I agree that despite there being a gate that closes on these PLRs it is OK for them to be unrestricted.
The reason for that is that PLRs are only routed when they are the closest way to get to a destination. So the time restrictions would only be of interest if the same PLRs served multiple destinations, some of which were open 24/7. These PLRs serve only the Staff of Life, nothing else, unless you count the charging station.
So in the interest of simplicity I’ve removed the time restrictions, and instead taken advantage of the new WME feature that allows Places to have their hours of operation entered and done so both for the Staff of Life and the Charging Station.
This should do the trick. Let me know if more is necessary.
---
### Author:  [@bwawsc](https://www.waze.com/discuss/u/bwawsc)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2014, 4:54pm UTC](https://www.waze.com/discuss/t/level-3-santa-cruz-ca/199472/8 "2014-10-01T16:54:54Z")
> [@DwarfLord](#):
>
> Looks good, although the southern outlet of the PLR from the Staff of Life appears to be one-way. I base that on the narrow width of the road and the fact that the STOP painted on it is centered rather than offset. I set it to be one-way and have connected all roads.
>
> By the way, our state manager took a passing interest in the area and was curious about the timed restrictions on the PLRs. Time-restricted PLRs are pretty uncommon. On reflection I agree that despite there being a gate that closes on these PLRs it is OK for them to be unrestricted.
>
> The reason for that is that PLRs are only routed when they are the closest way to get to a destination. So the time restrictions would only be of interest if the same PLRs served multiple destinations, some of which were open 24/7. These PLRs serve only the Staff of Life, nothing else, unless you count the charging station.
>
> So in the interest of simplicity I’ve removed the time restrictions, and instead taken advantage of the new WME feature that allows Places to have their hours of operation entered and done so both for the Staff of Life and the Charging Station.
>
> This should do the trick. Let me know if more is necessary.
Cool. I was thinking of the charging station and didn’t know about hours of operation.
Re the one-way southern outlet - I think it’s intended to be one-way use but it isn’t marked in any way and people (who know it’s there) use it both ways. That (southern) lot is also shared by the building just south of it, I think, and when the main gates are closed that’s the only way in or out for them (I suspect they have keys to that gate lock). For general routing purposes, though, it works just fine as a one-way road.
---
### Author:  [@bwawsc](https://www.waze.com/discuss/u/bwawsc)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2014, 5:00pm UTC](https://www.waze.com/discuss/t/level-3-santa-cruz-ca/199472/9 "2014-10-01T17:00:53Z")
> [@DwarfLord](#):
>
> … I’ve removed the time restrictions, and instead taken advantage of the new WME feature that allows Places to have their hours of operation entered …
Speaking of “Places” and “new”, what (if anything) are we supposed to do with all the new Places added by users in the new version of the mobile app? I see people adding their homes and taking pictures of them - do those stay, or should we delete them? AFAIK users aren’t being given any guidelines for what they should/shouldn’t add.
---
### Author:  [@DwarfLord](https://www.waze.com/discuss/u/DwarfLord)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2014, 6:03pm UTC](https://www.waze.com/discuss/t/level-3-santa-cruz-ca/199472/10 "2014-10-01T18:03:38Z")
When the Waze Map Editor undergoes a significant update, the Waze staff usually post an alert thread in the Waze Map Editor forum for questions, comments, and bug reports. That’s your primary go-to location when the WME functionality changes.
This time is no different, the thread is [here](https://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=110728).
It would seem that we editors are to function mostly in rubber-stamp mode for these photos. If we reject a place or photo it “goes on the user’s record” and could lead to an outright ban on that user, which is something Waze wants to avoid except in cases of egregious incompetence or clear disruptive intent. It’s better to approve and then modify than to delete and replace.
In the case of homes, we are to make certain they are marked as “private” residential but otherwise it is apparently OK…? I am not sure yet how the system deals with house addresses and house places, if it puts them together or if it just keeps two totally separate records for the exact same location. The latter would be fairly annoying…I don’t know. We are all madly trying to catch up with the new system.
I have yet to read through the whole thread (it was only started on Monday and it is already at 17 pages and growing). Almost certainly there is more information there to modify what I’ve just said. Please treat that as your primary source.