The Waze interpolation is very weak. Any forced HN (other than within the lightened distance from the segment) on a segment breaks the interpolation. Having one or none HN on a segment’s side means there is no interpolation on that segment for that side. Having variable distances between numbers means the interpolation is off; it is basically figuring out equal spacing between existing numbers.
The combination of RPPs and HNs has been bantered about for years so is coming and having an RPP and a HN for the same address will mean we either have to address each individually or very well will get the wrong one merged between the two systems. So to me there is a higher cost to have the extraneous data than benefit from possible interpolation.
RPP/HN merge is one of those !soon issues that I don’t think we should even consider at this point. The majority of roads have normal HN (as opposed to those other issues), and while I know Google interpolation is used far more often, I think there is still a place to keep Waze interpolation functional, if that means not deleting HN unless there is a good reason to. Just my opinion.
Changes as discussed have been made.
here is the updated diff
This has been my understanding as well. I don’t think removing HNs is needed anymore.
I will go with the consensus of the community.
It appears that you have four options:
- Leave a HN when a RPP is used
- Delete the HN when a RPP is used
- Let the Regions determine how they want to handle, similar to lock levels for segments
- Be like the current wazeopedia page and be mute on the issue.
Leaving some HNs will actually break the interpolation/extrapolation.
Ex. 255 and 253 Leonard St, Abingdon, VA
The access to these two residences is between 249 and 245 Leonard St.
Here is a snapshot in WME
Here is a snapshot of the County GIS
If you leave the HNs where do you leave them? At the access to the driveway to 255 an 253? If so they make it so that the 249 is forced and interpolation is broken.
If you put them perpendicular from the road then 253 will be forced and breaks interpolation to the east.
There are some empty lots between 249 and 313 but there is a T interstection between them so no interpolation will occur since there are not two Waze HNs on a segment.
Abingdon is a great place where apparently drunk city planners came up with the address numbering system. There are several examples of the following.
625 Locust St is out of order
by using a RPP everyone gets proper routing and the lot 17-3-83 (between 651 and 663 Locust) will get interpolation whenever it is built and has a number assigned. Leaving the HN for 625 will break the interpolation because the HN will have to be forced.
So if you propose to leave the HNs, I would think that a more complicated explanation of when to keep and when to delete is required in the proposed page.
Or the ever popular way of having a lot of numbered residences on a parking lot road or private drive like Popular St (again in Abingdon)
Is it worth having all the HNs anchored to the named segment since you need the PLR so that the easternmost residences don’t just snap to the Old Russell Rd?
Simplicity is a core principle of Waze editing. So removing the HN is easy and simple to remember and makes it so you don’t have to address issues like the above.
One simple rule I usually follow is that if the RPP isn’t on the same segment as the HN, I remove the HN for the same, valid reasons you mentioned, otherwise the HN can remain. This was what I meant by “HN and RPP next to each other can remain, only HN with a different stop point from the RPP should be removed”, and that easy rule agrees with your examples.
I agree that if HN and RPP are able to reside next to or on top of one another, then the HN “could” remain there. But in that case, what is the use of the RPP anyway?
Should some conditional message like this be mentioned on the page?
Users often add RPP in order to add pictures of their house. Most other reasons for RPP are for stop point issues that HN can’t solve, and in those cases, like Subs mentioned, HN should be removed.
So is there a reason we can’t follow the idea that simplicity says to remove the HN if we have an RPP involved? or do we need to add a statement in that it is conditional per region / area?
I guess that’s what I do too. I just think of picture RPPs as different from RPPs to fix routing, but they’re not 
This is a good and simple rule, both to preserve interpolation (not that I’ve ever seen it work), and also just that removing HNs, where the stop point is the same, is unnecessary, extra work. How about changing that paragraph to these:
I can live with Kartografer’s proposed change, but it is a lot more complicated than saying if you use a RPP then remove the HN.
The wiki is for explaining complicated stuff 
I agree with Kartografer’s updated suggestion, it covers all the different situations that may arise.
Agreed. I didn’t see any changes in the first paragraph, but I added in the second paragraph with some minor modifications.
“In the case that RPPs have been added to a segment other than where their corresponding house numbers are anchored, these house numbers should be deleted. This will reduce potential problems with searching for the address or editing the RPP. In the case that RPPs have been added to the same segment as their corresponding house number (e.g. people just taking pictures of their houses), those HNs should remain, as they will be in the same location as the RPP and routing will not be negatively affected.”
What do you think?
I slightly changed the wording on the last sentence of the first paragraph. I’m cool with your modification of the second.
I see them now. Very slight, but useful changes. I have implemented these into the page
We should split it into two bullets
Agreed. Due to the indenting of the numbering, I used that instead. I think it makes it look a little cleaner than those two paragraphs being bulleted at the same indent level as the rest of the section.
Thoughts?
Looks good
somewhere along the line the directions how to make a RPP (needing city and pin and nearby segment named with the exact street/city name match) was removed from what had been discussed months ago so I readded it. RPP Section.