Personally and when I spoke to the parking project lead a couple of weeks ago I got corroboration. If marking the PLA type will hide a lot that many would consider a valuable suggestion (mall lots, visitor lots at an attraction etc) I feel it’s better not to mark those restricted yet until the client can handle it properly. For employee only, or specialty lots like maintenance vehicles etc, marking it now makes sense because most users would not appreciate the suggestion. Basically would the average user appreciate seeing x lot as a suggestion? If yes I won’t mark it’s type in wme yet. The reason to include the restriction in the name is so these lots (visitor/employee/students…) Can search for a specific lot by name as well, especially if they are marked restricted type in wme, since then the ONLY way to navigate to them will be a named search. Therefore I feel the name should differentiate the lot enough to amke it easily searchable.
This is probably a discussion for another thread, but I still feel there needs to be some refinement in either the lot type categories, or in the expectations for them - not necessarily from an editor’s perspective, but what is the desired functionality as perceived by the average user and how does that jive with what staff see as their vision for the whole parking lot project? for example, we don’t yet have any wiki guidance on the ‘private’ lot type and if not for discussion with other editors, or mapping out different examples and testing them myself, I’d not be sure what the ramifications of each category are with respect to visibility on the map, in search, etc.
Taking off my editor hat, as a user I’d personally prefer categories go something like this:
-
public lots, of the type that anyone can drive up to and leave a car to go off for any destination; these should appear in search, as polygons on the map, and with “P” pins as one approaches a nearby destination.
-
venue parking, specifically restricted to customers; right now these appear in search (you get a result for McDonald’s as well as McDonald’s parking) but I feel that they should not appear in search or be visible on the map in any form unless a wazer is parked there.
-
searchable permit parking, where one must have a prearranged relationship in order to use the lot. Places like universities, users would (hopefully) understand that various lots need permits but they’ll want to be able to search for them by name.
-
private or hidden parking; places like service lots and others that wouldn’t be mapped except for technical reasons but would never show up in search or as “P” icons as most people wouldn’t want to be sent there to park.
… maybe that could be a call to add a fourth type ‘venue’ and use it for the (customers only) lots that we now categorize as restricted… and make that category non-serachable?
I agree with this and with Pesach’s post. Assuming that we are really marking every lot, I think the right way forward is to mark, honestly, the bulk of lots properly as Restricted or Private now, and to leave the handful of places where suggestions would be appreciated now (large shopping centers, large campuses e.g. colleges with multiple lots, large sports and other venues, etc.) public for the time being.
Given the present conditions, that sounds like as good a plan as any for the handling of PLA type usage.
Do we want to codify that in the wiki? Shall we make a proposal in the PLA wiki thread?
Or should this be an executive decision?
Can you quote the exact item we’re codifying, just to make sure everyone is on exactly the same page?
I was to to the previous posts by myself, sketch, and Bret regarding when to, and not to use the private or restricted flags currently.
To reply to your suggestions respectively:
-
This is current behavior WAD when not flagged as private or restricted, or closed.
-
This is not currently possible, and would require extensive retooling of the venue search mechanisms. This is not on the roadmap to my knowledge. Every place in waze including PLAs is searchable by name.
That said we could obfuscate the results to prevent them from being mistakenly returned by not giving then any name, or a very generic one. However, I would but want to have that discussion until after the private and restricted features are fully opened and we can see how it plays out.
-
These are the kinds of a lots then I would currently map as public and note the restrictions in the name and the description so they are still recommended as parking options. I would like to revisit these once the private and restricted features are functional fully and at that point we can see how they work and consider removing the restrictions from the name and description, and marking them with the proper flag. It would be premature to generate Guidance reviews now since we don’t know how those features will work.
-
My take on this is the same as for #2.
If I understand correctly:
- For Restricted lots, do not write the restrictions if they are self-explanatory (i.e., a Starbucks’ parking lot is for Starbucks customers only)
- For key places’ parking lots where parking is restricted to the general public visiting the places, continue to use the Public category for visibility in the map, until functionality exists to show Restricted lots appropriately. (I’m not sure how many there are of this category.)
Yes that is my take and I understand sketch as well. I’m not sure about how you’re translating it since that depends on the definition of “parent place”. Student parking a lot a college, customer parking at a mall, etc are directly related to the parent place, but would be public in this method.
PesachZ, I had a re-read of the thread, and I updated my post as you were replying.
I don’t know if I’d go so far to say “general public” as students and faculty are not general public for example. Also ‘key places’ should probably be expanded so people who didn’t read this thread understand what we are referring to.
Hey guys,
Does the Operator of the PLA take precedent over the name field? All the PLAs at LAX right now show up as LAWA, which is the operator listed on each PLA.
I agree with the first point.
To the second, I agree with Pesach that “key places” should be defined. A “key place” is generally one where multiple parking facilities are available, and more particularly where multiple of those parking facilities may be used by significant proportions of those who would navigate to that place. For example, a typical university campus, a large stadium or concert venue with several lots/garages, a large shopping mall with a large lot that has been subdivided in the Waze map. Not, however, a Walmart with one customer parking lot and one small employee parking lot.
Update:
Can you give an example or two of speciality purposes?
Yes, both parking lots and gas stations only show the operator/brand in search. Personally, I consider this a bug.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not sure what a “specialty purpose” is.
Apart from the (current, temporary) exceptions for multi-lot venues etc., we should generally set our guidelines in accordance with the tooltips that are given in WME, with expansion & explanation.
I also agree with both of sketch’s points. Regarding the first point, I think it’s pretty well understood by the general public that the small lots around single-business venues such as Starbucks are for use by customers only. There are in rare cases exceptions such as restaurants that allow some of their spaces to be used by carpoolers during the day, but those are exceptions and in the cases I know about personally, the business owners don’t exactly publicize this fact. But, my default in such cases is to assume that it is not okay to leave a car and travel off site unless I get verbal permission from an employee beforehand.
Regarding key places, I too agree that a clear definition and examples would be helpful in distinguishing these from public lots.
Yes, I was a little vague, as I’m trying to also reconcile the use of the descriptors that Waze provides, as well as what we want the pins to do. Let’s try this again.