{USA} [Page Update Proposal] Railroads

[karlcr9911]

Railroads wiki

Current wiki guidance is to name railroads, by default, as Railroad. This is the first bullet point listed:

Use the following guidelines when mapping railroad segments:

• By default, enter “Railroad” for the street name of every railroad segment. (See more below on Naming railroad segments.)

With the railroads rendering update in the app to properly reflect these segments as RR, I no longer see the need for this guidance and propose it be removed and railroads that are not owned or it’s ownership is unknown, be left unnamed.

EDIT: Most are in favor of removing names from railroad segments altogether, which I fully support so the discussion should be whether to remove all names from railroad segments with the option to leave names on segments when appropriate (historical, major landmark, regular/routine destination by Wazers).

[PesachZ]

I agree, and support this motion.

[WazingArch]

The only need is to select segments with one click. But we could live without it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[herrchin]

With how prominent the RR names (and type) display in the app now, and with how sometimes the RR ownership name is quite long, I often see a RR name dominating the app screen.

Is there a need to name them at all? Does their name provide a significant landmark in some states?

[deeploz]

I’m not sure if I’m supposed to give my opinion about this modification.

The topic subject is prefixed with “USA” so I understand that as a modification scoped to the US local wiki.

But the forum is supposed to be global or cross-communities (however this is not the Wazeopedia sub-forum)

Maybe US does not have a wiki forum in their US section of the forum ? And is used to discuss the changes here as the US wiki was the Global one since the very beginning.

Well. I’m a bit lost

EDIT : Should the answer not be obvious, it may worth to move this post in a separate topic.

[karlcr9911]

@deeploz

I’m not sure if I’m supposed to give my opinion about this modification.

Nope, this is USA-specific so there should be little confusion for you.

[Robert04101]

@herrchin

With how prominent the RR names (and type) display in the app now, and with how sometimes the RR ownership name is quite long, I often see a RR name dominating the app screen.

Is there a need to name them at all? Does their name provide a significant landmark in some states?

I agree with this POV. With the improved app display, I think there should be no name on RR segments except in rare cases where it might be a familiar local landmark (e.g. “Main Line” in Philadelphia suburbs).

[clubjuggle]

I support the idea of removing railroad names from segments entirely.

[whoaitspete]

I have to agree that the new labeling takes over and distracts from its navigational display purpose. Most Wazers aren’t going to know or care about who owns a line.

At the very least, this line of the wiki should be updated now until a decision is made:

Railroads should be labeled as such in the editor. For the time being they won’t make it to the client indeed, but in the future we might want to use them for display purposes.

[SkiDooGuy]

Personally I have never been a fan of labeling RR’s, it provides no real navigational benefit, and I can’t imagine Waze uses that data in any way.

Time is much better spent on other things.

If a RR is a major landmark or navigational point in a town then I am all for it, otherwise naming is superfluous.

[karlcr9911]

Yes, I’m completely fine with removing all names from railroad tracks if that is the consensus reached.

[bretmcvey]

Agreed, the naming is a distraction. Even for known ownership on particular rail lines, it’s distracting to see.

What matters is seeing the RxR potentially intersecting with a road and of course the data gathered at the crossings to aid in route speed data. Naming seems irrelevant.

[GeekDriverPeaceful]

I agree with the discussion. RR labels take over my map display and I feel that there are more important labels to see than RR names. Plus seeing railroad tracks is good enough for me as a driver to be aware of railroad crossings.

[herrchin]

@karlcr9911

Yes, I’m completely fine with removing all names from railroad tracks if that is the consensus reached.

It seems from the forum readers so far that this is strongly supported. Would it be best to finalize it by Champ and/or RC consensus?

[moogonk]

remove all names from railroad segments with the option to leave names on segments when appropriate (historical, major landmark, regular/routine destination by Wazers).

This is a good idea.

[xanderb]

I agree with removing them. Currently the name provides no benefit to drivers. They should already have no city name and will not be a big deal to implement the change, Validator should be able to highlight Railroad type with a name present.

[jm6087]

I agree, naming the RR is not needed. I can see them being left on City Mass Transit RR like DART in Dallas.

[bart99gt]

Drop the name entirely unless it is mass transit or has other significant landmark value.

[karrows]

I agree, no names. For special circumstances, discuss with your SM. The railroad names are really just TMI on the map.

[dfortney]

I agree and like the No Names proposal.

There will of course be special circumstances where a rail line is known locally/regionally by a certain name, but most of the time that’s not the case.