Waze forum

sketch wrote:

jm6087 wrote:

To ensure optimal routing, it is recommended to add an entry points to all point places, which will cause routing to stop at the segment closest to the entry point instead of the place point.

Are you proposing that all point places should have entry points? If so, I do not agree at all. If not, the structure of this sentence is misleading.

Yes, that was my proposal and I still think it should be. But I also know that you ever so slightly (about 158.97%) disagree.

1. I can easily agree that it should not be required.
2. I disagree that it should be strongly discouraged.
3. I personally don't feel that it is really much extra work. I can't argue that it is an extra step and takes 1/2 second extra to add, which by EXACT meaning is extra work. But it is not really not adding much time to my editing of a place.
4. We do require the entry point on area place and RPP and there are times it is technically not needed and could also be considered extra work. We do this because the extra work outweighs the possible negative effect of not having the entry point.

XKSpeed wrote:To ensure that an editor will visually be able to determine whether the Waze app will give a final arrival instruction of "destination is on your left" or "destination is on your right", I would like to change the wording of this section:

Single

Current wording:

Position the entry point on or next to the closest segment where a car would stop to bring someone to the place.

Suggested wording:

Position the entry point next to the closest segment where a car would stop to bring someone to the place, on the same side of the segment that the destination is on. This will ensure that the app uses the correct final arrival instruction: "destination is on your left" or "destination is on your right".

Agreed

IamtheLexx wrote:I have a question about Positioning examples for Places.

With regards to placement of the place, which one is more current? The top link, or the section for Entry points?

Those are two different items. The first link describes the placement of the actual PP. The second link describes the entry (stop) point positioning. They are equally as important.

Yep, there are plenty of "Hospitals" out there that are not full fledged Hospitals with Emergency or Urgent Care capabilities. That addition will help clarify to new users (and some of us seasoned users) that not all hospitals should get the "Hospital" category.

sketch wrote:Please do not put "Hospitals" FIRST. Folks will stop reading there. Try, "Clinics, medical hospitals, and only those hospitals which do not offer urgent or emergency medical care . . ."

You got that right, as soon as they see what they want to see they go hard charging until someone points out the rest of the wiki to them.

We had a discussion in Discord about place locking level standards, and it was determined that specific lock levels are set regionally, or on a per-state basis instead of nationally. It was brought up that some states/regions may not have specific guidelines, and therefore defer to national guidance on locks (which currently lists gas stations as recommended locking at L2). Because of this, changing specifics to lock levels in this section may be risky and ultimately not something that should be done on a national level. However I think the section would benefit from having just a few words in about checking regional guidance to get the lock level standard. I'd propose something like the following:

Place lock levels are set on a regional basis, so please refer to the Wazeopedia page for the region and/or state that contains the place for guidance on the appropriate lock level.

This would just go at the end of the General tab section after "...should also be considered for locking to prevent loss of data.":

https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/Places#General_tab

I would propose that this page is currently in heavy active use no longer "Under Construction" so we should remove the construction banner.

The talk page currently links to this forum for any questions that may come up.

Alternately, we can add a message box at the top of the page to point to this forum if there are questions, but in most Wikis, that is what the talk/discussion page is for, so I would vote against it on the main page.

ojlaw wrote:

RPPs will not work if they do not have the house number, street name, and city name and an entry point.

in this line

that statement is not correct. RPP will work without entry point added. best practice has been to add entry points but they work without entry points.

Both statements are partially correct. RPPs will work without an entry point if they are closer to a segment with the same named road/city. If they are meant to stop on a differently named segment, they require the stop point in order to work.

You might also want to look at the previous proposal to be sure there isn't any other information or missing third-party imports (eg, avsus).