https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lon=-121.99508&lat=37.28802&layers=933&zoom=5&segments=83179633,74019848,74019851,74019854,74019853,72647972,500284029,500284030,87002528,72804343,72804344,81736922,83179667,5334913,81736923,5342049 Please lower this stretch of Saratoga Ave (Bucknall to Prospect) and one segment on Quito Rd to L2 so I can 1) connect the PLRs to 1888 and 1848 Saratoga Ave; 2) enable the u-turn at Bucknall Rd and Saratoga Ave, and 3) correct and confirm the 40MPH SL on Saratoga Ave. The UR (https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lon=-121.99579&lat=37.28928&zoom=6&mapUpdateRequest=5043894) complains of being asked to turn left to the business, but I think they really mean they were dropped on the wrong side, and had to drive several blocks to u-turn and come back, without directions. I plan also to delete the HN for 1888 and fix up the weird SL imbalance on Saratoga Ave. I am R2.
The requested segments have been lowered to 2. This is a very high-profile area with heavy Wazer traffic, so please use maximum caution.
Thanks. Done, please check and re-lock https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lon=-121.99508&lat=37.28802&zoom=5&segments=83179633,74019848,74019851,74019854,74019853,72647972,500284029,500284030,87002528,72804343,72804344,5334913,81736923,5342049,501979156,501979158,501979157,501979162,501979277,501979276 to L3.
I verified 40MPH SL on all Saratoga segments, connected 4 PLRs, removed HN for 1888 Saratoga, changed Pso Pico to Paseo Pico to match street sign, touched all the HNs anywhere near the new PLRs on nearby streets, enabled the u-turn at Bucknall. Anything I missed?
Relocked, nothing appears to have been missed on the lowered segments. Good work!
I assume when you say you “touched” the HNs that you also verified them?
Correct on removing HN for 1888 Saratoga.
I found one improper TR that didn’t have your name on it so I just went ahead and fixed it 
However there is another group of TRs at one junction node that it looks like you missed. Not among the unlocked segments, no worries there. I’ll leave them, let me know if you need a hint
Thanks for the fine effort
Not necessarily a good assumption. I was able to see some addresses in SV - some painted on the curb, some visible on the house, some mailboxes with visible numbers. Many houses had no visible address. After looking at the visible ones, I “assumed” that the rest were ok - these all appear to be single homes, not duplex or apartments. If you pointed out legal HN resources before, I don’t remember them. [Edit]I found this one… https://www.sccgov.org/gis/SCCPubInteractiveMap/[/Edit]
:oops: https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lon=-121.99510&lat=37.28780&zoom=8
Yup! Shift-Z is your friend
Existing, un-nudged HNs that seem to interpolate well between verified HNs are indeed attractive targets for nudging even when direct supporting evidence is hard to find. Especially if the area seems to have reliable HN data based on other verifications. I suspect all editors have done so from time to time, and to be honest, I’m among them.
That isn’t to say it’s best practice, though :oops: If it looks important that an HN be activated – e.g. the raw location of the HN is dangerously close to the wrong road(s) – it is worth the effort to verify the location if at all possible, because you are about to change routing behavior. Some destinations are indeed addressed on one street but reached on another. (And of course, if Waze really wanted the HNs rubber-stamped, they would have imported them in already-active status and saved us the trouble 
)