Kartografer wrote:Yes, correct routing happens for walking trails on the beta server, but only if they are connected through normal nodes. The new phantom nodes do not give the correct routing behavior from both sides. Ruben's release notes today mention that this feature is still in development, and routing doesn't quite work yet, so we are on the same page there.

@Kartografer, the routing uses walking trails on production server too but you need to test the routes in the app, not on Live Map. Also, I noticed that routing server cannot determine precisely the location of Place if it is slightly closer to one segment than to another. This sometimes causes problems with the correct mapping of the Place.

petervdveen wrote:

WazingArch wrote:

petervdveen wrote:Hi!

I think I've got some good news:
The WT issues seems solved in beta.

I cannot confirm this because I see places located above underpasses or tunnels and Waze still routes to the underground road and not to the relevant walking trail near the place.

You can take a look at the following example - try to route to this post office located above a underpass.

Because it's closer:

https://www.waze.com/bg/livemap?lon=24. ... t_text=Now

Hmm, ok, perhaps I’ts my mistake because I expected the stop point of Waze Place, that is closer to the walking trail, to override the stop points of linked Google Places that are closer to other roads. This doesn't seem to happen on Live Map when the search result is linked Google Place.

I also wanted to point out the importance of this feature for proper routing.

petervdveen wrote:Hi!

I think I've got some good news:
The WT issues seems solved in beta.

I cannot confirm this because I see places located above underpasses or tunnels and Waze still routes to the underground road and not to the relevant walking trail near the place.

You can take a look at the following example - try to route to this post office located above a underpass.

Ok, thanks a lot, but this seems to me like a serious change in mapping habits.

I've always thought that WT is a path in a park or a very narrow passage accessible only by foot, while PB is a pedestrian/walking road/avenue in a city, like the ones across city squares.

If Pedestrian Boardwalk means alley along a body of water, I am afraid I won't be using this road much.

That's why some communities renamed the types from WT to "Pedestrian (routable)" and from PB to "Pedestrian (non-routable)"

You should focus more on their effect for routing and less on the way they are called in WME.

PB are ignored for routing, the navigation will guide the Wazer to the nearest drivable segment regardless of any PB which may be mapped closer to the destination.

WT, if connected to a drivable road AND being the closest segment to a destination, Waze navigation guides the Wazer to the closest node where the WT is connected to a drivable segment, where the Wazer should basically park and continue on foot.

The pedestrian routing feature should still be considered under development, as I understand it (however, I'm not privy to GC conversation). Eventually, the intended function is to produce the fastest route, combining driving time and a fixed/per-unit-length walking time.