We don’t want to name the parking lot segments so that they don’t muddle up the search for the landmarks. I’ve been using (beta) vehicle type restrictions to set the car side and the truck side, although I’m not sure it’ll actually work that way, the way landmark navigation works.
I agree that all entrance ramps should be named, whether there’s a sign or not—there always should be—at least, generally, “Exit to Rest Area” if there’s not other information.
Regarding the vehicle type restrictions… I noticed a post about that previously as well. If we’re getting that, then for it to work, we’d have to be able to set up a profile of what we are driving. Otherwise, how does routing know that you shouldn’t be on a truck-only road? So my question… are we getting that ability in the client with the updated editor? Or are we just getting the ability to set those restrictions ahead of time so it’s ready once they decide to release it into the client?
That ability isn’t actually coming to the client for some time. But either way, the way the destination point for a landmark is chosen, it wouldn’t matter as far as I know.
The wiki page still has the under construction notice pointing to this discussion thread.
Doesn’t look like it is active. Can we remove the notice and close this thread?
Before we do, one small change I noticed… it still uses the “Exit to <destination>” naming convention for the exit road. We should change it to be consistent with normal exit naming, “to <destination>” Theoretically, we could leave out the “to” since the reason we use “to” is not applicable here (i.e., to avoid select-all-ing additional roads).
When I saw that there was a new update to this thread, I came to propose that very same change. Good! (Of course, the “to” should remain for consistency’s sake.)
I suppose a few things will need to be added/changed soon once the additions to the Places feature are done, but I think this is fine for now. I don’t consider this to be “under construction” for the time being.
I have a question. I’ve seen them a couple of times in Texas and several here in Florida. What about scenic overlooks, recreational areas, or picnic areas? This picnic area is just west of Kerrville, Tx. It has no facilities, but it has some tables and benches. Same with this one in the Everglades.
I say call them what they are, using common lingo to determine if you call it a picnic area and tag it as a park or a scenic overlook, etc. rest areas are pretty clear IMO.
@sketch, we need to add the guidance about the mile post marker and hwy/fwy name in the rest area name. I’ve found the search for those works quite well.
Wow, that’s what I get for not reading the wiki page. I thought the naming rules had been added already.
So,
“I-59 N mile 55 Rest Area”
“I-10 mile 156 Rest Area” (one facility serves both directions)
“I-10 W Louisiana Welcome Center / Rest Area”
Like that, right?
–
Agree with Alan about picnic areas, etc. “I-40 W mile 120 Scenic Overlook”, etc.
Yes, I am pretty sure. Wait… “mile” instead of “mp”?
Yes, we decided on that because it’s more general. “mp” is not a universal term; many states (and people) would use “mm” for “mile marker”. So we settled on “mile”.
Done and done (no mile marker update). Please lock this thread for manageability and that time, and start a new one. or now, I don’t care either way.
I think this thread is fine, it’s only really a problem when the forum software can’t manage the pages.
I am making the naming changes now.
With the new implementation of places in v3.9, and some new information and testing which has come to light, some changes have been suggested to the configuration and naming of rest areas. There was an off forum discussion which I will attempt to consolidate accurately here (If I misquote anyone please correct me).
Several items should be updated.
Place area name to facilitate better search results and display.
Instant results rely on the beginning of the string, and most users would try to find a rest area by searching for [rest area], therefore it seems logical to revise the naming guidelines to have “Rest Area” come first. All rest areas regardless of type, including picnic areas and scenic overlooks, etc would start with “Rest Area”. Parking areas don’t need the special type at the end, since they’llbe understood by that fact that there are no facilities {Items in curly brackets are only added if applicable.}
“Rest Area - <highway name> {direction cardinal} mile <mile marker #> {rest area unique name} {(<special type>)}”
Mile number in description for welcome centers to shorten name.
Welcome centers have long names considering, and almost exclusively near state borders. Therefore mile marker numbers are of little significance in search results, and don’t warrant the long display name in the client. In these cases “Mile xxx” should be the first line of the description, instead of including it in the name.
They were previously suggested to be entered in the house number field, however that can be seen as opaque to newer editors, is a deviation from the standards, and of little benefit either. It can also cause a conflict if the place has a know legitimate street address.
This shouldn’t conflict with the next point as I imagine all welcome centers would have at least a restroom.
Special consideration for rest areas with no facilities, or restricted to certain vehicle types.
EDITED 10/30/14
Since many drivers will search for a rest area solely for the restroom facilities, it has been proposed to provide notice upfront if that is not available here, visible even in search. To be polite and PC, and based on character width it was suggested to use “(No Facilities)” in the name immediately after “Rest Area”. For those who may not understand what “No Facilities” means, “No Restrooms” should also be added as the first line of the description.
Areas which only allow access o certain vehicle types should also prominently display that info, and therefore follow similar guidelines. An area for trucks only should have “(Trucks Only)” in the name immediately after “Rest Area”. A Truck only parking area with no restroom will have “(trucks only, no facilities)” in the name.
For example:
“Rest Area - I-59 N mile 152”
“Rest Area - I-77 mile 45 Beckley Travel Plaza”
“Rest Area (no facilities) - I-75 S mile 15 (Scenic View)”
“Rest Area - I-65 S Alabama Welcome Center”
“Rest Area - I-10 Atchafalaya Welcome Center”
“Rest Area - I-10 mile 96”
“Rest Area (trucks only, no facilities) - I-65 N mile 24”
“Rest Area (trucks only) - I-23 S mile 76”
Entrance ramp from highway to match sign.
EDITED 10/29/14
If the Rest Area has a unique name, posted on signs at or approaching the area, common to plazas, and welcome centers, that should be included in the ramp name. This would follow the current guidelines in the road names wiki for numbered and unnumbered exits/entrances, named “to <name of where they lead>”, in this case the name of the Rest Area.
Basically Entrance ramps should be named matching their signs, according the Road Names wiki guidance.
A few examples
[table][tr][td]Sign Says[/td][td]Ramp Name[/td][/tr][tr][td]Rest Area =>[/td][td]to Rest Area[/td][/tr][tr][td]Parking Area =>[/td][td]to Parking Area[/td][/tr][tr][td]Rest Area
Louisiana Welcome Center[/td][td]to Rest Area / Louisiana Welcome Center[/td][/tr][tr][td]Rest Area
Tourist Information Center[/td][td]to Rest Area / Tourist Information Center[/td][/tr][tr][td]Exit 34
Beckley Travel Plaza[/td][td]Exit 34: Beckley Travel Plaza[/td][/tr][tr][td]Rest Area
Trucks Only[/td][td]to Rest Area / Trucks Only[/td][/tr][tr][td]Truck Haven[/td][td]to Truck Haven[/td][/tr][/table]
Stop point placed before first split to allow proper routing and destination prompt through area.
To ensure proper routing through the individual PLRs in the area to the correct location, the stop point would have to be placed in a generic location, which is traversed by all vehicles entering the area, otherwise it would force routing through one set of segments (the closest to the stop point). To remedy this the stop point should be placed just before the fist split inside the area (usually at the end of the entrance ramp).
Routing passed that point can be handled with partial restrictions on the segments set for vehicle type. If the users add the rest stop as a stop along their navigated route to their destination, the navigation will continue past the stop point towards their destination, forcing it to try to find a route back to the highway, thereby giving directions past the stop point only along the unrestricted segments for that vehicle type.
Categories to use for proper category search.
A search for Rest Area in the client (after tapping the search button) pulls up the Category result list for SCENIC LOOKOUT / VIEWPOINT, this lends itself to the use of that category in all rest areas, so they will come up in a category search. Therefore the recommended categories selected for all rest area places should be
Primary: Transportation
Secondary: Scenic Lookout / Viewpoint
plus any other relevant categories for ATM, Food, shopping, etc.
Note that gas stations at a rest stop should always be marked as a separate area drawn around around the area of the gas station.
Given the unique characteristics of gas stations, and users preference to be able to search them by brand name etc., and desire to see them displayed on the map, all gas stations should be areas. This can be interpreted to coincide with the existing places guidance on nested places, and it is believed that this is a good use for nested places. We should add a brief note emphasizing that the gas stations at a rest area should be mapped as an individual place, and not as a subcategory of the rest area. (I’ve seen this done several times, it can be disconcerting to search for gas, and see a rest area as the result).
The final syntax for naming a rest would be:
“Rest Area {(<vehicle type> only, no facilities)} - <highway name> {direction cardinal} mile <mile marker #> {rest area unique name} {(<special type>)}”
If you concur with these changes please reply so we can build consensus. If you have any objections, please reply as well so we can hash it out, and reach a consensus. Lets try to get these changes live, and enhance the users experience.
What’s not mentioned in here are those labeled “Exit xx: Rest area” for the ramp name. There are many which are labeled that as you get off of the interstate at those rest areas.
Good point, we weren’t discussing changing the prefix for the ramp "Exit XX: ", or " to ", just what comes next. I forgot to mention it. I’ll add in a pair of examples with numbers, thanks.
Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2
And for those not on an interstate and have no name, such as the one on US-87 outside of San Angelo or the name picnic areas along US-84 between I-20 and the New Mexico state line?
I agree with the changes proposed. But I continue to have problems with the way category searching is implemented. Thus, I worry that making changes that promote category searching is premature. Specifically, I still can get no category results unless I’m within a few miles of the place. Thus, if I search for “Rest Area,” the vast majority of the time I get no results. Essentially, only if I already passed the sign announcing the rest area will it appear in my search results. This seems to me to be a significant issue.
I don’t understand what “Primary: Transportation” means here. “Scenic Lookout / Viewpoint” is a secondary category of the primary category “Outdoors.” Are you suggesting to tag rest areas with both the primary “Transportation” and the secondary “Scenic Lookout / Viewpoint?” If so, why?
I agree we need Waze to increase the distance for category searches, however that shouldn’t stop us from preparing the map for those changes. I’m hoping the distance issue will be resolved with the gas station issue. I’m all for reporting it as a separate issue to get it some attention as well.
Yes, the proposal is to have a minimum of 2 categories set, the first category selected (aka primary category) should be the patent category transportation. It’s been agreed upon before and the rational still stands that given a choice most users would say rest area for best in the transportation category.
The second category entered should be scenic overlook / viewpoint, because Waze has obviously associated rest areas with that category. Followed by any other appropriate categories.
Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2
I’m hoping too. But I’m not sure I have as much faith. I’m wondering if we need to start thinking about the work around in case those changes are never made.
I understand that most of us would associate rest areas with the transportation category. However, as far as I can tell adding a primary category has no effect at all on anything (except to permit a place to be saved if no secondary category applies). Do we expect the “Transportation” primary category to have any effect?
Any ideas?
It will list out on top in the details view, in client and WME. I don’t know that it’ll have any functional difference, it just send appropriate. And may come into play if a future client gives the option to search for places by choosing a category from a list.
Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2