I had brought up the concern about short segments but at this point I don’t think it is a deal breaker. Just something to be aware of if/when there are URs.
Currently, I support the idea of adding the driveways
Just to add on to mine this was in a rural area
This is due to Waze’s method of choosing the starting direction. I really wish they would fix that in general.
Any further feedback on the proposal?
is Draft 2 the current draft?
Yes, as revised by sketch
i looked for the discussion where the length requirement changed from 50m(164ft) to 200ft, but i did not see any discussion. why was that change made? just asking because i looked at my old rural neighborhood and the length requirement difference could potentially change the mapping. thank you.
I’m not sure there was a specific discussion. That said, if a driveway is less than 200 feet long, but still meets ANY of the other criteria for mapping, then it should be mapped. If you had that question, I’m sure others will as well. I’ll probably end up using sketch’s second suggestion for the list to make that point 100% clear.
Lisa made a point in Discord that she felt like the second draft moved away from the general thought that rural driveways should be frequently mapped. That certainly wasn’t my intention. I think I might have (originally inadvertently) removed the urban vs rural distinction. That is because
I’m beginning to think that a useful driveway is a useful driveway, regardless of density. Most urban houses would not need driveways since they are “clearly visible from either direction, in all conditions, at typical speeds,” however, there are certainly houses that do meet the criteria for having a driveway mapped. Likewise, there are many rural properties who sit at least 50 m from the road (my own house included…and no you don’t get a picture of it for an example :lol: ) that are “clearly visible from either direction, in all conditions, at typical speeds.”
So, in summary, and to stop my rambling, the proposed guidance would now replace, rather than supplement current guidance.
Late to this discussion, but I’m glad to see this addition to the wiki. Provides some framework for me to go back over some low-density areas and reassess.
Adding my vote for the second draft of the proposal. It looks good – if there needs to be a tweak about making the list consistent in form, that’s fine, though honestly I haven’t checked whether it’s been totally consistent, anyway.
I don’t know if there’s any way to neatly define exactly at what point there are too many short segments, it all being dependent on route speeds, but I think some things could be left somewhat undefined. Mainly important to note that principle.
For the take 2 proposal,
I would change the start to “another properly-mapped segment” instead of the current “another properly-mapped driveway”
The paragraph discusses both other driveways or to the incorrect road. So it is more than just a properly-mapped driveway and using segment clarifies it in a simple manner.
I also suggest “or to an incorrect road…” instead of the current “or to the incorrect road…”
These two changes would become:
another properly-mapped segment would interfere with proper navigation for anyone starting a route at the property served by the driveway in question (in other words, if a property would not otherwise qualify for a driveway but is closer to another property’s driveway or to an incorrect road than it is to the road to which the driveway connects).
Third Draft:
[code]Driveways that contribute to the navigation experience should be mapped. In low density areas, they can serve as useful visual references on otherwise featureless roads. Even in higher density areas, properties can be set back from the road by a significant distance, and the user experience is enhanced by front door navigation, rather than to be given an arrival notification 200 or more feet from the actual house. Finally, in many cases the actual entrance to a driveway can be obscured by trees, rocks, etc, making it difficult to determine exactly where the driver should turn into the property.
When a driveway is mapped, it is important to use a Residential Place Point (RPP), rather than a house number, as a house number would still give the arrival notification at the driveway entrance. Remember to follow the accepted guidelines for mapping RPPs, found here [link to RPP wiki]
Map a driveway if ANY of the following apply:
-
it serves a property which is set back a significant distance from the main road (200 feet or more),
-
its entrance is obscured by trees or other objects such that the additional visual reference would be particularly helpful,
-
the property served is offset from the driveway entrance, such that the driver must make a turn after entering the driveway in order to arrive at the front door,
-
it serves two or more properties
-
another properly-mapped segment would interfere with proper navigation for anyone starting a route at the property served by the driveway in question (in other words, if a property would not otherwise qualify for a driveway but is closer to another property’s driveway or to the incorrect road than it is to the road to which the driveway connects).
Do not map a driveway if
-
the property is clearly visible when approaching from either direction in all conditions at typical speeds, or
-
doing so would cause interference with other navigation features such as ETA calculations due to short segments on the main road.[/code]
I would like to suggest this wording instead:
When a driveway is mapped, it is important to use a Residential Place Point (RPP), following the accepted guidelines for mapping RPPs found here [link to RPP wiki]. Using a house number would incorrectly give the arrival notification at the driveway entrance rather than the entry point for the residence.
Change three is fine. Understand you desire to leave the word “the” instead of changing to “an”.
I am good with your latest iteration.
version 3 looks great, thank you for working on this.
Agree that this looks good to go. Thanks for the added guidance!
I’m wondering if we really need this. If the driveway is curved (e.g. garage is on the side of the house, or in the back), but the house is visible from the road, I don’t think we should be mapping that. It meets the definition that we should map it as it applies.
Following the curve of the road is not a turn. The intent is if there are forks/intersections, then you map using the driveway and RPP.
Also the proposal says if clearly visible from the road to not map it.
So I think that your concern is already covered.
If there are forks/intersections, then there most likely are more than a single house off that driveway. This means that * it serves two or more properties bullet applies.
The reason why I’m asking is that I can’t think of a specific situation where this particular rule applies and is not covered by one of the other bullets.
How about a house that is built behind other houses and you have to turn to get to the location. This does occur in some rural areas even though all houses are visible it just provides better routing to the one in the back