Switch to full style
[ img ]
Post a reply

unconfirmed and disconnected roads- new roads

Fri May 23, 2014 9:42 am

Hi all,
i can see that there are some different ideas and approaches to the newly added roads into the map. Some thinks that it is better to leave the new added roads Unnamed segment (unconfirmed road), some claims that it is better to mark them no street and no city (if it is outside a city) if the information is not readily available. i can also see the similar situation in Ireland, we have both instances.

any idea about this? should I leave the new roads as is without touching the street names etc, to be able to see the flagged unnamed roads in the validator, or mark them no street?

there are also disconnected roads which i think might be left intentionally to be able to see them again similar to unnamed roads, i wonder is there a specific reason for this? should we fix them or leave them to relevant editor? i think that disconnected roads cause a lot of trouble on the server side processing when they are running the validation scripts.

there is a relevant topic with the unnamed roads here, sorry if there is one in ireland forum, but i didnt see that, i might have missed.

https://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=46635

Re: unconfirmed and disconnected roads- new roads

Fri May 23, 2014 10:50 am

this is from the thread you linked to:

daknife wrote:Since nobody else has really addressed this part of the question, I will. No we do not leave roads showing as red in the editor because we don't know the name. Such red roads do not show in the app and are thus effectively not there for routing and navigation. It is far better to have unnamed roads/incomplete info that waze can still route you onto, than it is to have maps full of unfinished roads that don't show in the app because they have incomplete data.


Yes ideally we name every street, but often such info is not readily available, and it's far better to map in a new street seen in updated aerial images with no name then it is to leave it off because we don't know the name.


I would have to agree. Also in Ireland, especially in rural areas many streets do not have a name, and its L- number can be quite elusive. I have raised this in a separate thread but nobody seems to have a source for these L- road numbers.

This is a handy tip I never knew about, also from the OP's linked thread:
glomp wrote:If you use the keyboard shortcut shift+D, unnamed roads will appear in red. Then you can then find them and name them. :D

Re: unconfirmed and disconnected roads- new roads

Fri May 23, 2014 12:54 pm

dmeehan wrote:this is from the thread you linked to:
daknife wrote:Since nobody else has really addressed this part of the question, I will. No we do not leave roads showing as red in the editor because we don't know the name. Such red roads do not show in the app and are thus effectively not there for routing and navigation. It is far better to have unnamed roads/incomplete info that waze can still route you onto, than it is to have maps full of unfinished roads that don't show in the app because they have incomplete data.

Yes ideally we name every street, but often such info is not readily available, and it's far better to map in a new street seen in updated aerial images with no name then it is to leave it off because we don't know the name.

I would have to agree.

Actually, that quote is incorrect - although it was the case until about a year ago that red roads don't show in the app. In recent times, I have seen many Irish red roads in the client and have successfully routed along the, (Look at the area around the Mahon Falls in Co. Waterford, for example)

Unnamed roads (that appear in red in the editor) *will* appear on the client and are routable, although unnamed roads that were created by paving (rather than in the editor) may not appear in the client (but they're also not connected to any other roads).

Therefore there's no harm in leaving them red IF they're a work in progress and haven't yet been named. I prefer doing this to marking them as "no name" because then it's obvious to all editors that they need to be named.

When I come across unnamed (red) roads that have been there for some time, I usually mark them as two-way (unless they might not be two-way) and join them with any other adjacent roads. If they were recently created (in the last few days) then I leave them alone at least for a while because the editor who created them might still be working on them. If there's any doubt about this, I PM the editor in question so as not to step on his toes.

Summary: I don't think we should ever mark a road as having no name unless there really is no way of determining the name, and I also think that when we come across a red road, we should do some research to give it the correct type and name. If it's a small rural road, then we can name it after the townland it's in according to our road naming policy (see the Ireland wiki page for this). Unnamed red roads are routable so long as they're connected to other roads, but obviously it looks better (and gives better instructions) if they're named properly.

The above it just my opinion though; other editors probably have their own way of looking things, so let's get all opinions out here.

++David \ davidg666

Re: unconfirmed and disconnected roads- new roads

Sun May 25, 2014 9:12 pm

Totally concur with davidg666 in his...
by davidg666 » Fri May 23, 2014 1:54 pm


Therefore there's no harm in leaving them red IF they're a work in progress and haven't yet been named. I prefer doing this to marking them as "no name" because then it's obvious to all editors that they need to be named.

When I come across unnamed (red) roads that have been there for some time, I usually mark them as two-way (unless they might not be two-way) and join them with any other adjacent roads. If they were recently created (in the last few days) then I leave them alone at least for a while because the editor who created them might still be working on them. If there's any doubt about this, I PM the editor in question so as not to step on his toes.

Summary: I don't think we should ever mark a road as having no name unless there really is no way of determining the name, and I also think that when we come across a red road, we should do some research to give it the correct type and name. If it's a small rural road, then we can name it after the townland it's in according to our road naming policy (see the Ireland wiki page for this). Unnamed red roads are routable so long as they're connected to other roads, but obviously it looks better (and gives better instructions) if they're named properly.


This makes much more logical sense as generally most editors can then see at a glance that segments require further attention.

I feel that to mark a segment City NONE, Street NONE is misleading. Respectfully suggest such be left red, be connected where possible and if an editor comes across such that are unedited for at least a Month and that editor can finish out - he/she should do so to the best of their ability.

For the common good, out there on the road!
Post a reply