Updating guidance on mapping forests, lakes, and rivers

[ojlaw]

if you have examples you would like add let me know and i can help draft it. i did add an example for dam as you saw.

I think it is nice to call out a new page IF it has significant additional guidance and help. Otherwise, we can just put the text into the boxes in the table and make it easy for people to see them at a glance.

the whole point of the additional page is to not put the info in the table. the table does not address the concerns of covering up features that are present in the native layer.

[JoeRodriguez12]

FYI I just tested it the other day, the Natural Feature category set as primary will render as the typical grey with any other area place (besides PLAs)

[ojlaw]

@JoeRodriguez12

FYI I just tested it the other day, the Natural Feature category set as primary will render as the typical grey with any other area place (besides PLAs)

thanks joe, i set one to test yesterday but i couldn’t find an existing one.

[ojlaw]

i updated the proposal with

• jm6087 and ldriveskier addition of 3. Used to cover errant water layers in the app. i also added under the water layers similar language because there can be errant land layers
• image place holders for some examples i made but need a tile update
• ldriveskier’s farm concerns
• joerodriguez12 Natural Feature color clarification

updated proposal

thanks all for the feedback!

[ldriveskier]

Thanks!

You did miss one of my comments:

Further down, “When adding any area place such as Forest / Grove, Farm, or Island in WME it could potentially cover up the native water layer which is undesirable.”. I would remove “which is undesirable” because it is desirable in some circumstances (such as an island covering incorrect native water layer).

Or, possibly “could” should be “would” if they all do? I haven’t use any of those except the island to cover the water layer.

[ojlaw]

they all cover the native layer. how about

An important consideration when mapping natural features as area places is how the objects will render in the app. When adding any area place such as Forest / Grove, Island, or Natural Feature(parent) in WME it will cover up the native water layer which could be undesirable. If an area place is added in WME that will cover the native water layer in the app then the appropriate water feature will also need to be mapped in WME, unless the water layer is not accurate in the app.

[DwarfLord]

The history and reasoning behind the existing water language may be helpful?

At one time, some editors apparently wanted to use Waze as a hydrographic resource. Out of enthusiasm they mapped minor, little-known creeks and ponds that were invisible to drivers, either because they were far from public roads, or because they were obscured by topography, buildings, or foliage.

It was also possible to find normally-dry basins, such as concrete channels built for 100-year floods, mapped from brim to brim as if they were year-round waterways. These would appear on the app as bright blue rivers rivaling the Mississippi, when in reality they were either carrying a tiny algae-ridden trickle or were dry altogether.

Because Waze’s UI displays water as very bright blue, these Places stood out in ways that gray features do not. So, the current language was written to limit such effects.

I’m certainly in favor of mapping well-known bodies of water or water that is visible to passing drivers. But I don’t see that anything has changed in Waze’s UI. So I am not following the desire to loosen the language regarding water features in ways that could support the applications we were trying to limit when the current guidance was crafted…?

But I do understand that there are many considerations.

[jm6087]

@DwarfLord

The history and reasoning behind the existing water language may be helpful?

At one time, some editors apparently wanted to use Waze as a hydrographic resource. Out of enthusiasm they mapped minor, little-known creeks and ponds that were invisible to drivers, either because they were far from public roads, or because they were obscured by topography, buildings, or foliage.

I don’t see an issue with mapping these.

@DwarfLord

It was also possible to find normally-dry basins, such as concrete channels built for 100-year floods, mapped from brim to brim as if they were year-round waterways. These would appear on the app as bright blue rivers rivaling the Mississippi, when in reality they were either carrying a tiny algae-ridden trickle or were dry altogether.

This one I can get behind. Adding some sort of language that states if the waterway does not normally hold water then there is no need to map.

[ojlaw]

@jm6087

This one I can get behind. Adding some sort of language that states if the waterway does not normally hold water then there is no need to map.

i think that is a good idea

[DwarfLord]

@jm6087

@DwarfLord

At one time, some editors apparently wanted to use Waze as a hydrographic resource. Out of enthusiasm they mapped minor, little-known creeks and ponds that were invisible to drivers, either because they were far from public roads, or because they were obscured by topography, buildings, or foliage.

I don’t see an issue with mapping these.

Back when I started editing, I remember seeing beginning editors get clubbed for adding elements (water or otherwise) that were really just decoration. Which is what water features are, if they are little known and invisible from any road.

Times change, and maybe the time is coming (or has come) that we want to encourage decorating the map with things that don’t directly support navigation and orientation. I can see arguments for and against.

Anyway, cheers, I just wanted to be sure the historical reasons for the existing language were clear.

[nzahn1]

@ojlaw

@jm6087

This one I can get behind. Adding some sort of language that states if the waterway does not normally hold water then there is no need to map.

i think that is a good idea

I think the phrase/modifier were looking to include is: “Perennial creeks, streams, and rivers”. Perennial streams are those which have water flowing them throughout the whole year (excluding drought conditions).

[jm6087]

@nzahn1

I think the phrase/modifier were looking to include is: “Perennial creeks, streams, and rivers”. Perennial streams are those which have water flowing them throughout the whole year (excluding drought conditions).

I like this.

[ojlaw]

all the suggestions to date have been incorporated into the proposal

thanks.

[ojlaw]

the comment period for this has been open for a long time. i will go ahead and publish the proposal soon unless there is any more feedback. thanks.

[wxw777]

I like the content. I see some punctuation/consistency items in the text. Do you want to handle those in the proposal, or handle them later. I’m happy to lend a hand.

[ojlaw]

now is the time to make suggestions

[wxw777]

@ojlaw

now is the time to make suggestions

These are all just style guide fixes, not content. Do you want me to call out each in a list or make the changes directly to your proposed page?

[wxw777]

I went ahead and copied the page to my own space and edited there so you can do a side-by-side review of my suggested punctuation changes. Not saying I caught everything!

Proof Draft

[ojlaw]

suggestions from wxw777 incorporated into published version here-
https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/Places/Natural_feature

when to use area vs point table on places wiki has been updated
and Natural feature added to detailed guidance section

thanks all for your help and patience.

[subs5]

Recommend that you give some definition to what a forested area is so that we don’t become like Russia and any “grove” of four or more trees is marked with an area for the green. They actually had people adding groves but then not adding the roads for large inhabited areas.
Worth stating that it is for named wooded areas?