[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 vectorspace » Mon Feb 04, 2013 2:42 am

txemt wrote:
vectorspace wrote:
I guess I might be a different type of user then, because I have kept Waze on when walking around the University and other locations when I have needed to navigate in a dense area that required foot traffic. I don't know if that is important, but wanted to share my experience.


You're giving false traffic data by doing that.


Me and how many others? (I really don't do it that much.) I have seen GPS traces all over campus and other areas without roads. I think we either have to accept that will occur or have Wazer police or get Waze to insert algorithms for this.

If this is really an issue, then why are there "walking trails" and "pedestrian boardwalks" as road types in Waze now? I have some new editors people that purposefully edit these into the map because they like to use Waze for biking and walking. Just wondering...
vectorspace
vectorspace
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:05 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Has thanked: 173 times
Been thanked: 418 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby AndyPoms » Mon Feb 04, 2013 7:55 am

vectorspace wrote:Oh yea... here is another landmark item that I think might have value in the Wiki and plolicy around landmarks.

When I started editing, I noticed a lot of the base map items, like a cemetery or a golf course (they were already in there) had boundaries that went directly to roads. That is, the edge of the landmark was aligned with a road exactly.

I wondered why until I tried to make a landmark like that for a whole city block (I think a fairground or something like that) and realized that the landmarks snap to roads at a certain level or distance from your cursor to a road. I guessed this was causing it when some early map titans were making the universe.

At the time I was perusing the forums and found that some people were really into how meticulous their edits were both in roads and landmarks. Some people were amazingly AR in how well things looked and had nodes on landmarks that could have zoomed into the inch-level for accuracy. This seemed kind of a waste of time and bytes in a Waze database when everything was going to be rendered to an iPhone screen or something a bit larger.

In any case, I decided I didn't like the way that landmarks that snapped to roads looked on the client (somewhat confusing without a gap), and would purposefully set the landmark a short distance from the road so it was not on the road.

It would be great if the Champs would address this editing approach in whatever they write up.

Regards,
Vectorspace


This is covered in the first post:
AndyPoms wrote:There are also a few places that refer to ongoing discussions, this refers to the fact that the Waze Champs are currently working with the Waze Staff to sort out some misconceptions about landmarks (snapping to roads, suppression of various reports, etc) and will also be creating a page that better addresses the Theory of Operation behind Landmarks shortly.

PLEASE keep your comments to specific guidelines and leave the more general discussion (i.e. should landmarks snap to roads) for a later discussion.
Image
Waze Champ & Forum Moderator
USA Country Manager
Senior Area Manager: State of Connecticut
Wiki: Editing | Best Practices | FAQ
AndyPoms
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 7056
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:34 pm
Location: Hartford, CT
Has thanked: 127 times
Been thanked: 1277 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby Daknife » Tue Feb 05, 2013 7:59 am

timl2k12 wrote:
jasonh300 wrote:Well, I can knock out a portion of vectorspace's objections in one easy sentence: Private businesses are not to be mapped because Waze's business model is to sell advertising to businesses that want to be mapped.

This is not a matter for debate.


Is that a quote from Waze TOS? How do you know waze's business model doesn't allow businesses and such to be mapped? Perhaps they have the infrastructure there for future plans that they feel don't conflict with their business model. Let Waze worry about their business model. We editors do not work for or get paid by waze. If they don't want businesses being mapped then they need to put it in their terms of service, or at least remove the option. Editors are users too, not employees of waze. So the matter is very much up for debate, until waze intervenes and provides enforceable guidelines. If it really is against their business model to landmark businesses why would they have the option?

While not in the TOS, please note that the Waze Champs actually do have the ability to communicate directly with Waze staff. So when a Champ makes a point as strongly as Jason did, it's because there is backbone behind it. On the point of not advertising there is very little wiggle. We love Waze, it's why we spend so much time editing trying to make it better and better. If Waze the company can't make a profit, it will go away and Waze the app would soon belong to Google (maybe not so bad) or Apple (no thanks). Don't get me wrong I'll argue what should be landmarked at the drop of a hat. I'm a big part of the reason this thread came about. I don't totally agree with all the suggestions as noted in my prior posts in this thread, but on why so many locations should not be mapped the not advertising is a big one that I totally support.

One other consideration vectorspace has not made. What happens when all those little landmarks start pressing together? They turn into one big blob of landmark, with names floating seemingly at random. Those of us who have edited for a while have seen areas where nearly everything is/was marked as you think it should be, and the landmarks are useless. In the client at maximum zoom you can't even tell where one landmark ends and the next begins, you can't tell what that business name there belongs too. It's simply useless and clutters the map enough to start making it difficult to find the names of the roads. Thus less is better.
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: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby timl2k12 » Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:28 am

Those of us who have edited for a while have seen areas where nearly everything is/was marked as you think it should be.

I don't think that - not with the way the client currently works - it would be a mess on the client, yes. I do think some major businesses can serve as useful landmarks though, and sometimes the POI info provided by landmarks is more accurate than anything else available.
Level 3 Area Manager - Tampa, FL
timl2k12
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:22 am
Location: Tampa, Florida USA
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby Daknife » Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:13 am

Okay but take a look at the when joined and post count of those of us saying NO. And compare it to yours. We are speaking from experience. I've seen areas like I described, I've looked at them in the client and they are worse than a map with no landmarks at all.

I've only been doing this for just over a year and I still feel myself a newbie compared to Jason, Bgoddette, Mapcat or Alan of the Berg. Andy's a Waze Champ but otherwise he's got the same experience level as I do, I beat him into Wazeland by three days.

We the users have no business marking any businesses. What seems like a good idea may actually be one, until it costs Waze the big advertising contract needed to keep the company and thus the app alive.
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: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby timl2k12 » Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:45 pm

daknife wrote:Okay but take a look at the when joined and post count of those of us saying NO. And compare it to yours. We are speaking from experience. I've seen areas like I described, I've looked at them in the client and they are worse than a map with no landmarks at all.

I've only been doing this for just over a year and I still feel myself a newbie compared to Jason, Bgoddette, Mapcat or Alan of the Berg. Andy's a Waze Champ but otherwise he's got the same experience level as I do, I beat him into Wazeland by three days.

We the users have no business marking any businesses. What seems like a good idea may actually be one, until it costs Waze the big advertising contract needed to keep the company and thus the app alive.

You talk like you are a waze shareholder or work for the company. That I find problematic. Who are you to say we have no business marking businesses? I don't care how much experience you have, you can have been wazing since you were born, I don't care. What does Waze say? That is what matters, is my point.
Level 3 Area Manager - Tampa, FL
timl2k12
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:22 am
Location: Tampa, Florida USA
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby Daknife » Thu Feb 07, 2013 2:13 am

I have no ties to the company at all. I do consider myself a virtual shareholder in that I like what they offer and have put thousands of hours into making the maps better. But I get and deserve no monetary remuneration for my time and efforts. My purpose for posting as I did is that I recognize that if Waze can't remain profitable, then Waze goes away.

But you are trying to dance away from my point. You claimed so much knowledge or investment yet you've been involved with Waze just over a month. You haven't seen how the maps have improved and evolved over time. I've only seen it for just over a year. You are disparaging the positions explained by long time editors, many of whom have met repeatedly with Waze staff and discussed the goals plans and intentions of Waze directly with the staff and even with the founder.

So when Jason says something is not up for discussion that is fact, not up for debate.

Here it is again. It is from Waze, via their appointed Champs.
Jasonh300 stated
Well, I can knock out a portion of vectorspace's objections in one easy sentence: Private businesses are not to be mapped because Waze's business model is to sell advertising to businesses that want to be mapped.
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: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby vectorspace » Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:41 am

I guess I'll chime back in a bit regarding the topics daknife mentioned...

daknife wrote:...but on why so many locations should not be mapped the not advertising is a big one that I totally support.


I'd like to point out that I do support any policy that is made clear. Once I saw Waze posting brands on the map, I wondered about this. On the other hand, debating an ephemeral notion to not landmark business based upon what a Champ may have heard from someone at Waze, but doesn't really speak directly about it, is not really doing service to those editors that care and trying to contribute ideas. I would rather such policy just be stated plainly with some explanation and rationale.

Specifically about posting businesses, I think I was clear that I don't believe every single business should be mapped. I don't think most should be mapped. I only think a few "landmark" businesses that are important to the community should be mapped. A lot of directions one gets from friends is something like "the second right after the Walgreens." Placing landmarks gives me a spatial concept of where I am as opposed to a bland grid of roads.

Specifically about a business model, I would think posting some businesses would not hurt Waze because landmarks are so very less visible than their flags for Dunkin Donuts and Ramada.

Finally, Waze itself already includes all the landmark types. Why would they be put in the list if they were not intended to encourage mapping such items? It seems really easy for Waze to just auto delete everything of a certain type or not display it if it is that big a deal.

daknife wrote:One other consideration vectorspace has not made. What happens when all those little landmarks start pressing together? They turn into one big blob of landmark, with names floating seemingly at random. Those of us who have edited for a while have seen areas where nearly everything is/was marked as you think it should be, and the landmarks are useless. ...


I'd like to correct that impression. I have made that consideration implicit in my comments. I don't like the map tiled with landmarks. I have seen local level-1 editors and some new AMs start adding every single business. I have seen people that own businesses get on mostly to put their business into Waze, like a bed and breakfast I saw once.

It quickly is clear that POI Search is much better for some things because businesses change, close, move, etc. Upkeep of a huge number of landmarks would be a nightmare and would lead to a mess that would not be sustainable. Upkeep of some critical community-relevant and traveler-relevant landmarks of many types is not a problem from what I have seen. I also think it makes the map on the client so very much more useful and interesting. That should make Wazers more interested in using the app.
vectorspace
vectorspace
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:05 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Has thanked: 173 times
Been thanked: 418 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby vectorspace » Thu Feb 07, 2013 6:50 am

daknife wrote:We the users have no business marking any businesses. What seems like a good idea may actually be one, until it costs Waze the big advertising contract needed to keep the company and thus the app alive.


I guess I have to reply to this, not in opposition, but in confusion. On a number of topics I have seen various editors debate the intricacies of editing, what's right what's wrong, and some that seem equivalent how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. That's all great for this very very small community of editors that can would normally read this post.

I thought another operational model of Waze was to let every Wazer edit the map. That massive number of editors will never read your policy not to mention the Wiki, and if we're lucky, maybe they will watch the cool training videos.

So... until the policy the Champs are considering is integrated into the operational editing of every user, then this makes little difference at all.

Also, I doubt Waze would let what's on the map interfere with a big contract for revenue. It is just too easy to script delete all Walgreens landmarks if CVS pours millions :D into Waze. I certainly want Waze Founders profitable so they can keep the app going, then sell off the company to Google or some such thing and retire until their next adventure.
vectorspace
vectorspace
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:05 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Has thanked: 173 times
Been thanked: 418 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby AndyPoms » Thu Feb 07, 2013 7:51 am

Alright, it's been a week and the conversation has departed significantly from
AndyPoms wrote:PLEASE keep your comments to specific guidelines and leave the more general discussion (i.e. should landmarks snap to roads) for a later discussion.

So, I'm going to lock this up for now. It's going to take me a few days to sort through the posts here (I've kept my eye on things, but have had some stuff going on that I'm dealing with) and look at any potential changes that need to be made and talk them over with some people, and then hopefully we have the guidelines.



vectorspace wrote:I thought another operational model of Waze was to let every Wazer edit the map. That massive number of editors will never read your policy not to mention the Wiki, and if we're lucky, maybe they will watch the cool training videos.

So... until the policy the Champs are considering is integrated into the operational editing of every user, then this makes little difference at all.
Part of your job as an AM/CM is to
http://www.waze.com/wiki/index.php/Area_Manager wrote: Act as a mentor to other editors, offering advice in both the forums and when you see improper edits on the map.
That means you should be talking with new editors, pointing them to the wiki, and trying to educate them in the correct way of doing things. It is also your job to remove bad edits from the map (usually after trying to point the user to the various guidelines & trying get the user to fix it themselves).
Image
Waze Champ & Forum Moderator
USA Country Manager
Senior Area Manager: State of Connecticut
Wiki: Editing | Best Practices | FAQ
AndyPoms
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 7056
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:34 pm
Location: Hartford, CT
Has thanked: 127 times
Been thanked: 1277 times

PreviousNext

Return to United States

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users