AlanOfTheBerg wrote:

Machete808 wrote:OK, the text for the proposed guidance is below. It's also hosted with images on this userpage:

https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/User:Machete ... ove_search

Hey, I want to get this page published. Where should it go?

At this point it seems you have consensus and it is a US only page with US champ approval so all we need is to find a home for it.
I think the core message should be a section under here on the USA Road Names Page .

I would make a few tweaks though, having the whole discussion (and Q&A) in the page is a deviation from the typical 'user manual' style of our wiki pages. I want to separate the main content for inclusion in the city naming page, and then leave the rest as a subpage which can be linked to as "more details".

The text of the guideline currently is:

On segments which have "No City" set, an alternate segment is to have the city designated by the U.S. Postal Service

I think it would be better written as:

On segments which have the "None" checkbox marked for the primary city name, the city name designated by the U.S. Postal Service should be set as an alternate city name for that segment.

AlanOfTheBerg wrote:

PesachZ wrote:At this point it seems you have consensus and it is a US only page with US champ approval so all we need is to find a home for it.
I think the core message should be a section under here on the USA Road Names Page .

I would make a few tweaks though, having the whole discussion (and Q&A) in the page is a deviation from the typical 'user manual' style of our wiki pages. I want to separate the main content for inclusion in the city naming page, and then leave the rest as a subpage which can be linked to as "more details".

The text of the guideline currently is:

On segments which have "No City" set, an alternate segment is to have the city designated by the U.S. Postal Service

I think it would be better written as:

On segments which have the "None" checkbox marked for the primary city name, the city name designated by the U.S. Postal Service should be set as an alternate city name for that segment.

All that sounds reasonable.

Done!

Northern Virginia specifically Fairfax County has thousands of steets that have CDP as the primary name and route just fine and do not use the mailing address.
Is this supposed to be rural areas only or as the post above says any location is US with different mailing address than the Waze CDP?

AlanOfTheBerg wrote:

subs5 wrote:Northern Virginia specifically Fairfax County has thousands of steets that have CDP as the primary name and route just fine and do not use the mailing address.
Is this supposed to be rural areas only or as the post above says any location is US with different mailing address than the Waze CDP?

What this is intended to address is the segments which have no city data on them at all right now, and have no valid way to found in a Waze search result. This is primarily rural parts of the country where there are gaps of tens or hundreds of miles between cities. If we set the primary city on all of these, the city polygon could spread over thousands of square miles which are not part of the city.

I understand and agree with changing for areas where there is a Routing problem. I was just trying to point out that the guidance put out has wording which implies change all areas in US to have postal address in the alt name. I would just word it differently so only in rural areas where needed and the HN or RPP does not work otherwise.
Basically just a small clarification so new editor(s) don't come across it and do a lot of work that really does not change the Routing or what app users see.
Like I said in other posts I support the change but would like the guidance to be a little more specific for when to implement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AOTB,
Looks good, I am in.

Thanks for the clarification. V/r subs5

I think that the new proposed changes in Tonestertm's draft are MAJOR changes to only use the USPS for all areas with CDP that are different from USPS. When this first came out I asked about going to USPS and was told that was not to happen.

The way the new draft is written entire areas would have to be redone on every segment. I think this would require a new vote since 1) it is not just for when there is a Routing Issue and 2) it says to add the USPS to any segment where there is "conflicting name". The conflicting name is not defined and could be interpreted as any CDP that does not match the USPS.

My statements above are based on the proposed
"Because many Wazers will search for a location by its postal address, a new (as of November 2016) editing standard includes adding the USPS-designated city as an alternate on segments having no name, or a conflicting name, in the City field."

If I am reading this incorrectly please let me know. Thanks, Subs5


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk