I agree. 99% of suburban PLA’s won’t have any of that info.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree, it would be nice to have this adjusted, or at least have an option to turn this off.
Hi!
When accessing a suggestion (PUR) where the object is yet not confirmed, the script nevertheless modifies the point object making it impossible to save the object thereafter. The script should not modify any pending objects.
Regards,
Andreas
Do you have “Automatically run the script when selecting a place” checked? If so, I would suggest you turn that off. This way you run WMEPH when you are ready.
Would anyone else find it helpful to use WMEPH in conjunction with PNH sheets to default in attributes of a business’ PLA data, such as “restricted,” “accessibility,” “street level,” to where we can override them if need be? Given that most chain locations share these same attributes (albeit in a shopping center or standalone locations), it feels like this would help speed up the process and increase efficiency and consistency. I’m aware that obvious attributes would be quite volatile, such as number of parking spaces, but most of those other attributes would pretty much be consistent from one location to the next.
Take any restaurant chain, for example. Most restaurants would have a restricted parking lot with accessible, street-level parking. Heck, we could even assume 30-60 spots, if we wanted. But even without that, those other attributes would be consistent as we construct these PPs. As with any PNH match, it’s important to review the default attributes to ensure they actually do pertain to that location.
I like that idea.
Related, some additional helpful things for PLAs might be nice. Similar to the shortcut for adding an address (house number) to a place, maybe a row of buttons with all the size (# spots) options could pop up any time a new PLA is created, or any time WMEPH is run on a PLA with the # spots set to 1-10 (most, though not all, lots are bigger than this).
Also, perhaps WMEPH could suggest to add the accessible parking flag by default (similar to the “ATM?” button for banks), because most lots will have accessible spots due to ADA requirements. I think that is the one attribute that I do flag regularly.
Thanks for the suggestions. I’ve had it on my to-do list for quite a while to start tackling PLA’s – just haven’t had the time to dedicate to it yet. I’ll be sure to document these ideas.
Regarding PUR’s, I’ve also got it on my to-do list to disable WMEPH on any places with PUR’s. Hopefully that’ll take care of that issue even if you’re using the auto-run feature.
Thanks Mike
You know us editors, never happy and updates are never fast enough 
Thank you MoM!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah, I really hope the tone of words can be heard in that we truly appreciate all of this. Once you design something as helpful as this tool, we keep seeing newer and more innovative ways to make it work closer to perfection.
Is there any chance having some other sets of eyes on the code could help out at all?
That depends… how far down the rabbit hole do you want to go? 
But seriously, any and all help is welcome and appreciated. There are only a couple of us working on WMEPH and it’s rare that we get extended time to really concentrate on the code.
To any coders that would like to help: I need to clean up a few things before I would recommend that you fork and submit pull requests.
To everyone: feel free to submit any issues or feature requests here (need a GitHub account, but it’s free to sign up):
https://github.com/WazeUSA/WME-Place-Harmonizer/issues
A few tips:
- Don’t worry about labels and other stuff on the right side, just a simple title and description will do.
- You might try searching to see if the same/similar issue was already submitted but that’s not a requirement. Duplicates are easily removed.
- Including a PL demonstrating a specific example of a bug can help.
Just curious what this means, I’ve never seen this message before about a 6 month timer.
It is fairly new. Basically it allows you to lock a place without an external link and it will turn green. 6 months later it will be blue again so you can check to see if there is an external link now.
OK, makes sense. Thanks.
Can an option be added to let us turn that OFF? I’ve been getting places colored red, with that message showing up. I’d really prefer an option to let me just leave it alone; when something is red, it usually requires attention, and I dislike having to “nudge” a place that not only doesn’t have a Google link, but isn’t likely to ever have one.
I realize that this may not be the case for everyone (thus why I’m asking for an option we can turn on/off for this feature), but so far, every single one that’s wanted to be nudged ended up with me just hitting the “nudge” button because there was nothing new in the Google link world for it. My time is pretty limited currently, and my OCD kicks in when I see red places, which I then end up fussing over instead of doing what I came into an area to do. 
And then I’m out of time and didn’t do the things I came to a given area of the map to work on.
Maybe it’s only supposed to be “blue” (which I could live with if I had to), but I’ve been getting areas that are red.
--Dave
For Fas Mart, which is the convenience store for some Valero Gas Stations, is it worth putting in Fast Mart and Fastmart as alt names? Received a UR since they went to wrong location due to a bad search import for the alt name.
I thought we just created a point place for them in the gas station. They generally have their own URL, phone number, etc.
Exactly the point. Any place which CAN have a Google Link should absolutely have it added as it improves Search and Navigation immeasurably.
If you can quantify that statement a bit, we can look in to eliminating the requirement for that type of place.
All of us have finite time to work on the map, and more than we can actually handle. I don’t want to discount your feelings/needs but, truly, Google Linking is a HUGE part of Places work.
We should i[/i] never enter intentionally wrong information as an Alt name for that purpose (I only qualify that, because I’m sure there’s some tiny exception I haven’t thought of). The Google part of our search does a pretty good job of fuzzy searching when there are misspellings, in my experience.
This sounds like it was the fault of a bad Alt name, but I’m having trouble parsing your last sentence.
I have no experience with Fas Mart, but ldriveskier may have a point? The salient question is: is anyone ever going to search specifically for a Fas Mart, or are they “only” likely to choose between two Valero stations, based on whether there’s a Fas Mart there? (And, are there standalone Fas Marts?)
Out here, we have ARCO, and some ARCO stations have a branded “am/pm” mini mart. It is highly unlikely anyone will search specifically for an am/pm, but they may select a given ARCO from the list depending on whether it has an am/pm or not, so we add am/pm to the primary name, making it visible in search results.
The reporter stated that they searched for “Fastmart”, a common misname for the Fas Mart. Someone probably already had Fast Mart trademarked so they came up with a close approximation. I am not hard over but thought I should ask since it would seem to improve the verbal search since Voice to Text hates fake words like “Fas” and will change to Fast.