russblau wrote:...but the purpose of this document is to provide guidance to a group of volunteers who are unsupervised and pursuing their own personal motivations. If you just tell them "don't map X" without explaining why, they will ignore if it they feel like it. At a minimum, this document needs some explanation of what is the difference between a landmark and a POI, and why it matters for mapping.
I agree 100 percent. The rational is important to a volunteer community. I'd further this by adding that there needs to be some flexibility in the guidance. It seems evident to me that perceptions of between small/big town, rural/urban, east/west coast, north/south, regional, cultural, etc. can have significant impact on what would be a landmark. Some absolutes may be useful but in general they don't appear to be good for a fairly large and diverse country.
russblau wrote:
Second, given what I understand to be the purpose of landmarks, many of these guidelines make no sense. Why is the "historical importance" of a cemetery of any value in deciding whether it is useful to drivers seeking to orient themselves on the road network? Why are parks or schools, which may be located far off a road, more useful for navigation than a store or office building? A McDonald's at a major intersection may be a more useful landmark than a church that is at the end of a long dead-end street and not visible from any other road. Again, what's the reason for these distinctions?
Again, I agree 100 percent. What I really agree with is asking the question, "Why?" rather than just making up some rules that are not principle-based. The principles answer the "Why?" question and help understand if the rules are useful.
When the past, now locked, landmark guidance thread was started, I added a number of comments just like these, but more specific to the proposed guidance points. I think one thing I discerned from the conversation there was that a number of people were biased toward the POI search being the dominant approach for considering use of landmarks. I mentioned that I like the visual value on the graphical display and often search that way, touch the screen, and indicate to navigate there. I also like visual orientation and content on the map rather than a bland set of roads. A recent comment i posted in "Jolly Drivers" had a UR come in from a user that wanted the ability to switch between map and satellite view. Why? My guess is just for that reason - visual reference.
At the Meetup 2013 it was clear to me that Ehud wanted content, including landmarks. There were prior debates (apparently uninformed) about the business model of Waze, and not putting the local McDonalds on the corner in as a landmark for that reason. Ehud wanted it all there, I assume because then he has more on the map to work with and show or not show at a later time.
At the same time I can see that taking this too far could cause a problem and too much noise on the map. (1) Less can be more. This is true because of what we see on the display. (2) It is also true because the more landmark data you add, the harder it is too keep up the maintenance of that data. This probably leads to the idea that we shouldn't map every individual business. To me we do't want to do that because they open, close, and move a lot. Do you want to keep up with maintaining that? Nobody will. People will keep up maintaining businesses that are themselves landmarks for the community, like the corner pharmacy, McDonalds, Walmart, etc. People do use these landmarks to navigate by seeing what is on the display -- they are often more visible than the road name signs. (3) Too small of landmarks will not display well, or at all, but maybe that is OK if the search function finds them -- Waze appears to be heading in the direction of searching their own data. (4) Inconsistency in what you see as a landmark from one place to another will add confusion for the users. So, we need some order as well.
Rather than just yap about "principles" here are some ideas that people can pick apart, add to, enhance, etc. I think I wrote some of these in my prior posts, but am suggesting some for the discussion. I did this quickly so there is not a lot of thought in these items:
Principles - Why we map landmarks:
- Waze has indicated they want landmarks. Waze will search landmarks in POI Search.
- Some people navigate better with landmarks as a visual reference.
- Landmarks add visual content and interest to the map rather than having just a plain network of roads.
Principles - Consistency in Landmarks:
- Consistency in how we map, name, and document landmarks will provide a better, less confusing, experience for the users.
- Consistency in how we name and document landmarks will enable better POI Search by Waze that uses their own data.
- Consistency in how we map landmarks will affect how well Waze can use landmarks to alter navigation and adjust automated error reporting in navigation.
- There must be room for regional/local variation in what is portrayed as a landmark because value of a landmark may be different in these regions and specific content may exist one place and not another.
- Consistency in picking the right type of landmark is useful. For instance, what type of landmark is a golf course? (park)
- Consistency in naming landmarks is useful. For instance, should it be "John Adams Middle School" or "John Adams MS" to save display space in the client?
Principles - What is a Landmark and should be mapped
- Tourist destinations including historically significant locations, natural parks, amusement parks, etc. These are mapped both for Waze-internal POI Search and visual reference. {edited here due to comment by ncc1701v}
- A landmark is an important item on the map useful for visual reference in navigation by the user or by POI Search (of its own data) by Waze. Examples might be visually apparent corner businesses, shopping malls, rivers or bodies of water (if not in the water layer), etc.
- Items important to travel by users should be landmarks, such as gas stations (special type of landmark), travel centers, rest stops, tourist destinations and visitor centers, car washes (?), tunnels (?), etc.
- Items that impede travel and help a user understand a route may be good landmarks. Examples might be a golf course, flood ditch (arroyo), large private complex like a university, etc.
- Items critical to a community should be landmarks. Examples might be government services, courthouses, city services, etc.
- Emergency or medical services such as hospitals or pharmacies should be landmarks.
Principles - What we should avoid mapping or what is not a landmark
- We should not map every small business unless there is an overriding reason to do so. These items usually do not have navigation value. If we map everything, then it leads to a maintenance nightmare because these entities open, close, and move quite often.
- Water features already in the water layer should not usually be landmarks.
- I am sure there are a lot more categories of things that should not be mapped. I am drawing a blank on some now.
Notice I didn't go into detail about exactly how to draw a landmark or how some landmark mapping, naming, and documentation could be different.