[USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

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: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby ncc1701v » Sat Feb 02, 2013 3:41 am

I don't understand the usefulness of mapping tunnels and bridges. They are for driving, not stopping at, yes? If you map them, why not interchanges?

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD
... and the "v" is for Volvo.
ncc1701v
 
Posts: 547
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:08 pm
Location: Ithaca, NY USA
Has thanked: 49 times
Been thanked: 45 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby txemt » Sat Feb 02, 2013 5:55 am

I have to admit, I'm down for this list to be applied in San Antonio. I've sent it out to the AMs in the city and if they all agree, I think we'll implement this list in San Antonio.

I do have to disagree about the bridges and tunnels being landmarked. I understand some bridges (Golden Gate) are huge tourist attractions, but do we really need to landmark them?
Just wazeting my time to help you waze your route smoothly.
txemt
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 4770
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:03 pm
Location: 26.1901 80.3659
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 1034 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby Scorp42 » Sat Feb 02, 2013 6:25 am

I'm confused as to how we map fast food drive throughs now. Many cause traffic jams on nearby roads. I read conflicting things in the forums. Map a restaurant landmark. Don't map a landmark. Map a private road. Don't map a private road. Now this guifdeline suggestion says not to landmark restaurants. I'd love some clarification.

Secondly, I like the 24/7 emergency care requirement for hospital landmark, regardless of if its a private facility, a for profit, or nonprofit.

With the church landmark... does this mean your local churches should not be landmarks? But things like mosques should?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
iPhone 4 (AT&T GSM)
iOS 6.0.1 - nonjailbroken
Waze - 3.5.1.998
Scorp42
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 9:21 pm
Location: Southwest Florida
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby ncc1701v » Sat Feb 02, 2013 6:39 am

txemt wrote:I do have to disagree about the bridges and tunnels being landmarked. I understand some bridges (Golden Gate) are huge tourist attractions, but do we really need to landmark them?

I'm guessing it's so you can tell you are approaching the bridge or tunnel on the map.
... and the "v" is for Volvo.
ncc1701v
 
Posts: 547
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:08 pm
Location: Ithaca, NY USA
Has thanked: 49 times
Been thanked: 45 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby txemt » Sat Feb 02, 2013 6:42 am

jasonh300 wrote:
pjlasl wrote:I wish there was a more universal acceptance to editing. This is a good start if accepted by more peeps

My pet peeve is editors marking all drive ways in neighborhoods. Or every parking lot road possible in a lot ...


Please report editors who do that sort of thing. Compliance with the Wiki guidelines is not optional.


I think a LOT of these are imported from the base map. I've deleted a TON of them that have "Admin" as the last editor with an edit date of 2009, meaning they've been imported from the basemap.
Just wazeting my time to help you waze your route smoothly.
txemt
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 4770
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:03 pm
Location: 26.1901 80.3659
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 1034 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby txemt » Sat Feb 02, 2013 6:44 am

ncc1701v wrote:
txemt wrote:I do have to disagree about the bridges and tunnels being landmarked. I understand some bridges (Golden Gate) are huge tourist attractions, but do we really need to landmark them?

I'm guessing it's so you can tell you are approaching the bridge or tunnel on the map.


What does that have to do with anything? If I'm approaching a bridge, I'll probably see it from 5 miles out. I understand tunnels sometimes sneak up on you as you drive, but I could care less if I see it on the app. As long as I'm getting to my destination, I'm happy.
Just wazeting my time to help you waze your route smoothly.
txemt
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 4770
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:03 pm
Location: 26.1901 80.3659
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 1034 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby MrFoosh » Sat Feb 02, 2013 8:32 am

These all sound like some great guidelines to me! As a relatively new editor I'd be willing to adopt the whole thing as written, right now, just to create more uniform standards.

The only real peeve I have with editing is the landmark for parking lots. I don't think those are necessary at all as long as you have parking lot roads mapped-in and connected to streets to prevent URs and MPs. When I drive by a shopping mall, McDonald's, or the local Wal-Mart, I'd kind of expect that the big, paved, open area in front of the mapped building is going to be a parking lot; creating a landmark for this seems redundant to me. The only thing drivers need to see on the app when driving is the parking lot road leading into the parking lot so they know how to get there and park.
MrFoosh
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 7:16 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby CrackedLCD » Sat Feb 02, 2013 10:31 am

dmiller1984 wrote:I agree that hospitals with 24-hour care is a good rule for mapping hospitals. It goes along with the reason for mapping police and fire departments in that it is a place you can get help if you're in trouble.

2.10 Camp site / RV Park - Not Mapped. Handled by POI Search.


I mentioned this in the original thread, but I think it got overlooked in the scope of a larger discussion. What about mapping camp sites like we do beaches by marking them as parks? Camp sites are many times part of a park anyway and you can't always rely on a POI search to find a campsite.


I assume you're referring to free public camping sites, or sites within a state park with a small fee? I could see doing that, but commercial operations would fall under the 'no business landmarks' rule, I reckon.
~CrackedLCD
AM for Baldwin-Mobile Cos., AL // Grenada-LeFlore-Carroll Cos., MS // Escambia-Santa Rosa Cos., FL // CM for the USA

Moto Droid Turbo (Android 5.1) on Verizon Wireless
Image
CrackedLCD
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 12:37 am
Location: LA (Lower Alabama)
Has thanked: 97 times
Been thanked: 63 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby CrackedLCD » Sat Feb 02, 2013 10:33 am

txemt wrote:I think a LOT of these are imported from the base map. I've deleted a TON of them that have "Admin" as the last editor with an edit date of 2009, meaning they've been imported from the basemap.


There's a ton of these that were imported from the base map in the next county over from me, and I've taken to deleting them when they lead to too much clutter or are inaccurate. But I've found that I have no real choice but to map parking lot roads in fast food places from time to time because they generate a crapload of error reports.
~CrackedLCD
AM for Baldwin-Mobile Cos., AL // Grenada-LeFlore-Carroll Cos., MS // Escambia-Santa Rosa Cos., FL // CM for the USA

Moto Droid Turbo (Android 5.1) on Verizon Wireless
Image
CrackedLCD
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 12:37 am
Location: LA (Lower Alabama)
Has thanked: 97 times
Been thanked: 63 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby MisterMooCow » Sun Feb 03, 2013 1:16 pm

tldr: less is more; in general, severely limit landmarks to keep the maps useful.

In my mind, a landmark is generally something that was there 50 years ago and is likely to be there 50 years from now. It is something that is both a significant destination for a majority of the population likely coming to an area as well as a significant visual presence that lends itself to navigating in an unfamiliar area. However, landmarks should be few-and-far-between so that when a user is looking at a map while driving, they aren't forced to process clutter in order to discern their route (this is especially important in denser urban areas).

As such, I'd suggest tempering many of the items in the proposal with a minimum dimension requirement, perhaps modulated with the local population/building/road density as well as with the local building size (where the latter would require that the landmark be significantly larger than surrounding structures) and with the number of existing landmarks in the vicinity.

The first part (minimum dimensions) would help to curb a recent local surge in the addition of "pocket parks" -- mini-greenspaces that, while truly being public parks, are so small as to be indistinguishable from a home or business lawn. I've been toying with a guideline that goes something like "In general, only parks that have actual roads/driveways/parking lots should be mapped"

The first part would also eliminate the "university branches", DMVs, urgent cares, etc. that are little more than a recently vacant storefront in a stripmall -- all of which should be easily located using the in-app search.

The second part (population/road/building density) would keep someone from mapping every DMV, police department, fire department, public restroom, etc. -- again, arguably all things that should be located using the in-app search. (NOTE: the argument that someone would use waze to locate a hospital/fire/police department in an emergency is difficult for me to accept-- in an emergency, I would hope that a user would call 911, not try to search around on waze -- which could be horribly out of date or even devoid of information because of data-service outages -- to find the closest first-responder outpost; I won't even speculate about the liability issues there).

The third part (number of local landmarks in a given area) would also help prevent visual clutter in state capitals, county seats, major metro areas, etc. where there can be a major concentration of public buildings, museums, sporting venues, etc. -- and where making every one of them a landmark means that you end up with a map of landmarks that has an occasional street peering through vs. the more useful-for-navigation map of streets with an occasional landmark.
MisterMooCow
 
Posts: 311
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:05 pm
Location: oHIo
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 34 times

PreviousNext

Return to United States

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users