So what I'm gathering is: delete excess parking lot landmarks per wiki, expand shopping mall landmark to cover parking lots, and lock it.


---------------
Sent from iPhone via Tapatalk

Sounds good; Done Deal. Thanks.

harling wrote:If the parking lot roads are mapped--at least the one(s) that run alongside the building(s)--then a GPS-based destination will route you to the closest area of the parking lot.

I don't understand why there is still no "shopping mall" landmark type, but I think the "parking lot" type is poorly named, since its purpose is to help drivers find public parking. If a mall, restaurant, office building etc. has its own parking lot, then you know when to park when you get there; you don't need a separate "parking lot" landmark. But if your destination is in a downtown area that relies on central parking, that is when the parking lot landmark type is supposed to be used.

If they had named the landmark type "public parking" rather than "parking lot", this explosion of parking lot landmarks on every coffee shop and fast-food joint would have been avoided.

In terms of the "shopping mall" landmark type; that's what the "Mall/Shopping Center" landmark is for -- which is what we're discussing.

As for renaming "Parking Lot" to "public parking", I can see where you're coming from. However, IMHO, I don't think it will make a difference.

For new editors, and\or those whom never read the FAQ, Wiki, or forums -- it's naturally the assumption for these users that if you give them landmarks to choose from, then surely they are meant to be drawn as objects on the map. If they were grayed out as options until a certain level, then perhaps this wouldn't be the case.

If anything, I believe the most confusing landmark type for users is the "Garage" type. I initially used it to mark public parking garages under the assumption that's what it was for. And from reading the forums, it appears there are AM's that still believe this to be the case.

As for myself, I discarded that notion after reading the [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments and mark urban parking decks as "Parking Lots" vs. "Garage".

However, if there were to be a re-categorization, or renaming of "Parking Lot", I would imagine it would be clearer if instead of just adding "Public" to the mix, it would make sense to also create a "Private" one. I would envision this would function best if there were drop down boxes or check boxes associated with the current landmark which could toggle whether the landmark is a private vs. public lot vs. parking deck.

Speaking of Landmark Overkill... holy landmarks, batman!

I should have posted before I deleted 10-12 others in that area. :-0

harling wrote:If the parking lot roads are mapped--at least the one(s) that run alongside the building(s)--then a GPS-based destination will route you to the closest area of the parking lot.

I don't understand why there is still no "shopping mall" landmark type, but I think the "parking lot" type is poorly named, since its purpose is to help drivers find public parking. If a mall, restaurant, office building etc. has its own parking lot, then you know when to park when you get there; you don't need a separate "parking lot" landmark. But if your destination is in a downtown area that relies on central parking, that is when the parking lot landmark type is supposed to be used.

If they had named the landmark type "public parking" rather than "parking lot", this explosion of parking lot landmarks on every coffee shop and fast-food joint would have been avoided.

I looked in the Wiki and could not find a clear answer regarding mapping parking lots. This is a great direct answer. This should definitely be added to the Wiki.

AlanOfTheBerg wrote:

Riamus wrote:This is the first time I've seen the Junction/Interchange landmark used, though. Why would that every be needed? And it was added by a level 4... or at least someone who is that level now.

Several US champs have added interchange landmarks with the Exit #. It actually looks pretty good in the app and is a nice thing to see, and fairly standard, for a map/GPS app to do something like this. We've been waiting for Waze to tell us if they can just do this display automatically based on the segments in the area.

I've got a lot in my area, and because I like the way it looks, would like to see it as a standard. Since we've not received that kind of feedback, I think we should move forward with it. IMO.

I think this type of landmark is perfect for a road like the Pennsylvania Turnpike; in addition to an exit number, each interchange has a unique name. I like this idea a lot. I need to bring it up in the Pennsylvania subforum.

AlanOfTheBerg wrote:I only mark the mall building and have no landmark covering the lot(s) as I see little purpose for that.

I request that you all figure out what we should do, for consistency.

Personally I would be inclined to fine granularity. For example, in Honolulu there's a small mall with a Whole Foods in it that I wanted to find. I could find the mall entrance but where to park for Whole Foods? No idea. So in general I would be inclined to mark the anchor stores, and an overall landmark if the mall has a name, and then add roads (the essential navigable parking lot ones) to get to those anchor stores.

That looks like a Virginia location I saw (I forget which city), though perhaps not quite as packed. That one had every tiny little shop down the road marked. It was complete overkill. This is the first time I've seen the Junction/Interchange landmark used, though. Why would that every be needed? And it was added by a level 4... or at least someone who is that level now. Nice to see the "store/stall" added at the top without any other information. That's certainly a very useful landmark.

As far as "public" parking goes, I'm not sure that there is any single name you can use that will be obvious to everyone. It would probably work best calling it Public Parking and then just clarify how it should be used in the Wiki. Anyone adding it where it shouldn't be added can be PM'd with the link to the Wiki. With some luck, we might keep incorrect use to a minimum that way. I think right now, most people deleting the excessive landmarks are just deleting them without telling the person who added them why they were wrong. That just means that person may continue to add them unless they finally read the Wiki.

After reading the Wiki and forums, I look at the parking lot landmark as being for parking decks, parking lots, and commuter/carpool lots that are open to the public and are not for a specific business (or group of businesses in the case of malls). Anything else probably shouldn't be there, though there could be some exceptions in certain instances. If there is a need for mapping the parking lot of something else, then that's where parking lot roads can be used. Yes, it would be nice if those showed up differently in the client, but they will eventually and it's still a better option than marking every parking lot with a landmark. I'd rather be able to pan around on a map and find any places where I can park in a city rather than seeing lots that I cannot park in if I'm not a customer.

Ah, that makes sense. Yeah, I think seeing the exit number appear in a green box would be a nice addition if we could talk Waze into adding that. I'm always in 3D view, so I don't see the majority of text anyhow, but I see where there can be value there. Based on what you both said, I'm guessing this would only be for actual exits from freeways or perhaps major highways and would not be for every ramp off a limited access road through a city, right? Or would you say that it would be used anywhere that has an exit sign? Or just exit signs that have numbers? I like the idea behind it and support trying to make it standard, but we'd need some clarification on when it should or shouldn't be used or we'll end up with people adding it everywhere ala parking lot landmarks.