Landmark - Best Practices US

Image This is the place to discuss issues that are relevant for locations in the US. For any other discussions, please use the main forums.

Moderator: MapSir

Re: Landmark - Best Practices US

Postby PhantomSoul » Wed May 01, 2013 10:23 pm

I've got a number of editors landmarking rivers, lakes, and other bodies of water in my area. Should we be landmarking those or should they be asked to stop?

I thought that the Waze client uses a completely separate layer from the WME landmarks to show where there is water. Has this changed?
ImageImageImageImage
Waze Editing Manual | USA Road Types | USA Forum
Verizon iPhone 6 / iOS (latest) / Waze (latest/beta)
PhantomSoul
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:00 am
Location: Union, NJ USA
Has thanked: 282 times
Been thanked: 455 times

Re: Landmark - Best Practices US

Postby vectorspace » Thu May 02, 2013 12:27 am

I enter small bodies of water because they were never on the water layer in Waze and never showed up on the client. I think they are vital visual references to understand the map that is displayed on the client and should be entered. If you mark them as sea/lake/levee, then Waze can always choose to not display them.
vectorspace
vectorspace
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:05 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Has thanked: 173 times
Been thanked: 420 times

Re: Landmark - Best Practices US

Postby razor2k » Thu May 02, 2013 12:44 am

vectorspace wrote:I enter small bodies of water because they were never on the water layer in Waze and never showed up on the client. I think they are vital visual references to understand the map that is displayed on the client and should be entered. If you mark them as sea/lake/levee, then Waze can always choose to not display them.


I see your point to the visual reference thing, which would be fine if you just do a simple polygon of the object. However, I've seen detailed outlines of "retention ponds" which have probably upwards of 100 nodes. :o ....This is not good.
Area Manager: Pinellas, Pasco & Hillsborough Counties FL
Phone: Samsung GS 2, Sprint, Android 4.1.2
Waze: 3.7.2

Waze FAQ...Best Map Editing Practice...Correct Server?...User Manual
razor2k
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 8:40 pm
Location: Saint Petersburg, FL
Has thanked: 62 times
Been thanked: 54 times

Re: Landmark - Best Practices US

Postby Daknife » Thu May 02, 2013 7:20 am

PhantomSoul wrote:I've got a number of editors landmarking rivers, lakes, and other bodies of water in my area. Should we be landmarking those or should they be asked to stop?

I thought that the Waze client uses a completely separate layer from the WME landmarks to show where there is water. Has this changed?

Last I heard the guidance was still no. With possible exception for significant bodies that do not appear in the water layer. I made one allowance in my area for a significant river (The Jordan river) running the length of the Salt lake valley to be added as it is not in the water layer.
Any other water body landmarks are deleted as soon as I see them.
Image
AM in Utah; CM USA
Utah Forum: Utah Forum
Samsung Galaxy S4 running 4.4 KitKat on Sprint
Daknife
Waze Mentor
Waze Mentor
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:03 pm
Location: Riverdale, Utah
Has thanked: 456 times
Been thanked: 227 times

Re: Landmark - Best Practices US

Postby dctdye » Tue May 07, 2013 6:20 am

So just to be clear, I can go ahead and nix landmarks like these, right?

https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=2&lat ... rks=349361
Area Manager- Tuscaloosa/Northport, AL

Image
dctdye
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:27 am
Location: AL, USA
Has thanked: 58 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Landmark - Best Practices US

Postby CBenson » Tue May 07, 2013 10:13 am

I'd contact Made2Map regarding why it was added before I'd delete it.
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902
CBenson
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 10293
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1061 times
Been thanked: 2339 times

Re: Landmark - Best Practices US

Postby vectorspace » Tue May 21, 2013 5:17 am

razor2k wrote:
vectorspace wrote:I enter small bodies of water because they were never on the water layer in Waze and never showed up on the client. I think they are vital visual references to understand the map that is displayed on the client and should be entered. If you mark them as sea/lake/levee, then Waze can always choose to not display them.


I see your point to the visual reference thing, which would be fine if you just do a simple polygon of the object. However, I've seen detailed outlines of "retention ponds" which have probably upwards of 100 nodes. :o ....This is not good.


I guess I would defer to the local need for water landmarks that are not on local layers. I see a lot of absolute statements about what should and should not be a landmark, including water. I keep going back to the Meetup 2013 where Ehud said he wanted as much content as possible to make the map better. I would wonder what improves the experience of those using the client and not make a simple or arbitrary rule and then try to apply it everywhere.

The visual reference idea is one I have used to decide to add or not add landmarks. Rivers not on the water layer that are miles away from any road are not very high priority to add. On the other hand, water landmarks in a city that perhaps only have water on them during flash floods (like in New Mexico if we could ever get rain again) are things that define natural barriers to traffic flow and points of reference people use to navigate. They ought to be added, in my opinion, because they add useful content.

I agree that adding overly detailed structure of a water landmark is a waste of bits and processing time for Waze.
vectorspace
vectorspace
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:05 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Has thanked: 173 times
Been thanked: 420 times

Re: Landmark - Best Practices US

Postby mapcat » Thu May 23, 2013 1:26 am

vectorspace wrote:I keep going back to the Meetup 2013 where Ehud said he wanted as much content as possible to make the map better.

I wasn't there, so I don't know the context, but "as much content as possible" does not make a map better. It has the opposite effect.
CM, USA/Canada ∙ iPhone 5 ∙ iOS 7.1
mapcat
 
Posts: 2444
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 5:29 am
Has thanked: 95 times
Been thanked: 196 times

Re: Landmark - Best Practices US

Postby vectorspace » Thu May 23, 2013 3:42 am

mapcat wrote:I wasn't there, so I don't know the context, but "as much content as possible" does not make a map better. It has the opposite effect.


Yea--I agree. I think it is a threshold issue -- when is as much as possible too much. There are implementation issues -- what is presented on the display. Overall though, that was the impression I had.
vectorspace
vectorspace
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:05 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Has thanked: 173 times
Been thanked: 420 times

Re: Landmark - Best Practices US

Postby jondrush » Thu May 23, 2013 3:45 pm

Accurate content is great. Hacked up content on multi-use layers, not so much.
Keeping the Waze maps tidy since 2009
jondrush User Page
Image
jondrush
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 2630
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:20 pm
Location: South Eastern Pennsylvania, USA
Has thanked: 191 times
Been thanked: 500 times

PreviousNext

Return to United States

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users