TX Landmark deletes

Moderators: txemt, jasonh300

Re: TX Landmark deletes

Postby Alice2 » Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:26 pm

The same thing is happening in San Antonio, TX. Many landmarks which I think should be considered important to mark have disappeared from the update map and the client. There are too many to include all in permalinks, but the list includes a university campus, other schools, parks, cemeteries, large shopping centers, amusement parks, parking lots, gas stations.
https://www.waze.com/editor/?lon=-98.61 ... TTTTTTTTFT
South of Loop 1604 is the campus of the University of Texas at San Antonio, north of Loop 1604 is The Shops at La Cantera and the Six Flags Fiesta Texas area.
https://www.waze.com/editor/?lon=-98.60 ... TTTTTTTTFT
East of I-10 is a cemetery, a park, and farther east a high school campus. These were all previously marked as landmarks.
There are many others scattered all over town.
There seems to be a widespread epidemic.
Alice2
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:30 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: TX Landmark deletes

Postby allaboutxy » Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:54 pm

I've also noticed a lot of landmarks have been removed in the Plano/Richardson/Murphy/Wylie/etc. area. Although my AM area extends to most of the Dallas/N. Dallas/Collin County area, I primarily stick to things around my home/work since I drive those the most and verify changes, etc. I understand, Brooks' opinion, but have to disagree, respectfully of course. ;) As far as the issue of clutter goes, that's the benefit of being able to turn those layers off. Some people don't like to see cameras...that doesn't mean they should all be deleted.

Since we can't see who deleted something I can't contact that person to find out why they deleted them. I've re-added most of them since the things removed were mostly are schools and parks. Also things like malls can be useful since they don't pinpoint a specific store. I would say that if you're going to go start deleting a bunch of landmarks, a courtesy PM to the person who created them would be nice.

Also, as to not mapping local businesses, I think that we can continue to improve Waze, not only for directions, but for POI help as well. Finally, it's always helpful to have landmarks orient you. I would venture that most people don't blindly turn left/right/right/left/left/left/right when the GPS tells them to. Being able to see on the map that your right turn is next to the Taco Bell (or whatever) can be helpful.

-Billy
allaboutxy
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:01 am
Location: Murphy, TX
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: TX Landmark deletes

Postby andrewfatcat » Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:33 pm

If you guys can mark the landmarks again I can help lock them so people won't be able to delete it for personal reasons (I've seen that).
Image
AndrewFatCat
Area Manager in Houston, TX, U.S.A.
andrewfatcat
Beta tester
Beta tester
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:36 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: TX Landmark deletes

Postby andrewfatcat » Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:23 am

ok, done.
Image
AndrewFatCat
Area Manager in Houston, TX, U.S.A.
andrewfatcat
Beta tester
Beta tester
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:36 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: TX Landmark deletes

Postby andrewfatcat » Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:23 pm

bscharff wrote:Please review the following threads:
viewtopic.php?f=276&t=26005
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=31542
Specifically, the posts written by Waze Champs.

I have deleted minor landmarks in Dallas as advised by the Champs' posts in those threads, as they serve no usable purpose and are just a waste of space.


I think the landmarks they mentioned should not be classified as wastes. Parks, cemetery, schools can be labelled. If it shouldn't be labelled then they shouldn't be in the WME for people to add. There were landmarks that were really waste was something imported with base maps, such as "xxx prison farms" that surpassed a huge area of lands across various places in Texas and were probably not there.

If the landmarks being added serve public interests, then I don't see the reason not to add it up. Even if it is a private business, I will say it is unfair to remove it because there might be larger business such as shopping malls being added to the map, as long as it is not releasing private information that someone does not want to release or spamming. Now they are promoting adding gas stations, so that further justifies the existence of other landmarks. If a gas station can be a landmark, why a local grocery store can't be?

As how to display these landmarks so they won't look like a mess is something that can and should be tuned by the Waze team, not our jobs. And if someone feel it is uncomfortable to see a lot of landmarks when editing, just turn off the layer just like I do.
Image
AndrewFatCat
Area Manager in Houston, TX, U.S.A.
andrewfatcat
Beta tester
Beta tester
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:36 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: TX Landmark deletes

Postby andrewfatcat » Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:12 pm

bscharff wrote:As it was said, if we cannot label all of the local businesses, then we cannot label any of them. Gas stations are a feature of the client... and we are adding them all. Grocery stores are not a feature, and there is no plan for them to be. It wastes data on the server, and transmitting it to the client. The only purpose of Waze is to navigate to locations in the most efficient way, taking into account traffic information. They added the gas station feature as it relates to driving. Seeing Bob's Storage or Walmart has no place here, and just clutters the map (both in WME AND in the client)


I don't think it costs that much of data. And there are more non-existent roads that may take more data space than that. If that would be a problem, waze wouldn't let people do it. And it is not for you nor me to decide how the app should just solely be used for navigation only. Moreover, waze now mostly relies on external sources, it is probably a better approach to build up its own POI database when other major gps brands already have that. And I don't see people complain google or other map service when they all display a lot of POIs.

And like what I have said, you can just turn off the landmark layer in WME, and the landmark display in the client can be improved (it already displays landmarks accordingly for different sizes in different zoom levels), and you shouldn't remove someone else's work just because your personal preference.
Image
AndrewFatCat
Area Manager in Houston, TX, U.S.A.
andrewfatcat
Beta tester
Beta tester
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:36 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: TX Landmark deletes

Postby andrewfatcat » Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:51 pm

AndyPoms wrote:
andrewfatcat wrote:
bscharff wrote:As it was said, if we cannot label all of the local businesses, then we cannot label any of them. Gas stations are a feature of the client... and we are adding them all. Grocery stores are not a feature, and there is no plan for them to be. It wastes data on the server, and transmitting it to the client. The only purpose of Waze is to navigate to locations in the most efficient way, taking into account traffic information. They added the gas station feature as it relates to driving. Seeing Bob's Storage or Walmart has no place here, and just clutters the map (both in WME AND in the client)


I don't think it costs that much of data. And there are more non-existent roads that may take more data space than that. If that would be a problem, waze wouldn't let people do it. And it is not for you nor me to decide how the app should just solely be used for navigation only. Moreover, waze now mostly relies on external sources, it is probably a better approach to build up its own POI database when other major gps brands already have that. And I don't see people complain google or other map service when they all display a lot of POIs.

And like what I have said, you can just turn off the landmark layer in WME, and the landmark display in the client can be improved (it already displays landmarks accordingly for different sizes in different zoom levels), and you shouldn't remove someone else's work just because your personal preference.


A few notes...

1) Most major GPS brands don't have their own POI database - they buy their database (and can't update as frequently as Waze's maps do) from one of a few providers (NavTeq, Tele Atlas, etc)

2) The editing guidelines clearly state not to map individual businesses - there are several reasons for this, including the fact that Waze is looking to those very businesses to be advertisers with the service. Please follow the published editing guidelines.


I don't encourage people to add individual business. However, if it was already added by someone else, or someone was willing to add it voluntarily (even by the owner), I don't think it is justify to delete them or stop them if the information is correct.

I think the advertisements they are working on are things popup like events on the map, not just normal landmarks or POIs.
Image
AndrewFatCat
Area Manager in Houston, TX, U.S.A.
andrewfatcat
Beta tester
Beta tester
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:36 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: TX Landmark deletes

Postby andrewfatcat » Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:28 pm

AndyPoms wrote:
andrewfatcat wrote:I don't encourage people to add individual business. However, if it was already added by someone else, or someone was willing to add it voluntarily (even by the owner), I don't think it is justify to delete them or stop them if the information is correct.
The guidelines clearly state they should not be on the map. Which means if they are, they should be removed.

andrewfatcat wrote:I think the advertisements they are working on are things popup like events on the map, not just normal landmarks or POIs.
The advertising works similar to landmarks. The image below shows a Dunkin Donuts Advertising Pin, which appears on the map in any mode (if you scroll down) as well as landmarks (if you scroll right)
Screenshot_2012-11-24-07-46-11.png

That was what I was talking about. Other landmarks don't appear like DDs.

You don't do thing because it is said on the wiki because wiki can be wrong. It has to be correct, and I don't think removing landmarks is correct here unless there was an official response from Waze telling people not to add business POI.
Last edited by andrewfatcat on Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
AndrewFatCat
Area Manager in Houston, TX, U.S.A.
andrewfatcat
Beta tester
Beta tester
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:36 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: TX Landmark deletes

Postby andrewfatcat » Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:32 pm

andrewfatcat wrote:
AndyPoms wrote:
andrewfatcat wrote:I don't encourage people to add individual business. However, if it was already added by someone else, or someone was willing to add it voluntarily (even by the owner), I don't think it is justify to delete them or stop them if the information is correct.
The guidelines clearly state they should not be on the map. Which means if they are, they should be removed.

andrewfatcat wrote:I think the advertisements they are working on are things popup like events on the map, not just normal landmarks or POIs.
The advertising works similar to landmarks. The image below shows a Dunkin Donuts Advertising Pin, which appears on the map in any mode (if you scroll down) as well as landmarks (if you scroll right)
Screenshot_2012-11-24-07-46-11.png

That was what I was talking about. Other landmarks don't appear like DDs.

You don't do thing because it is said on the wiki because wiki can be wrong. It has to be correct, and I don't think removing landmarks is correct here unless there was an official response from Waze telling people not to add landmarks.


And BTW... it was off to the point a little bit.
The landmarks were removed were not private business. They were college campus or other public facilities and major attractions.
Image
AndrewFatCat
Area Manager in Houston, TX, U.S.A.
andrewfatcat
Beta tester
Beta tester
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:36 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: TX Landmark deletes

Postby andrewfatcat » Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:27 am

daleprice wrote:Thanks, I've re-added Baylor: https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=4&lat ... TTTTTTTTFT

and the park: https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=3&lat ... TTTTTTTTFT

But I don't have editing rights to re-add UT since I haven't driven in that area since I joined Waze.


I've re-added UT Austin and let me know if there is need to modify it. I will leave the individual building to someone familiar with the school.

P.S. Landmarks can overlapped each other so one can still add individual buildings even the whole campus is marked already.
Image
AndrewFatCat
Area Manager in Houston, TX, U.S.A.
andrewfatcat
Beta tester
Beta tester
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:36 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Next

Return to Texas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users