juliansean wrote:...if a person searches for an airport in the middle of nowhere are they really expecting a Chicago ORD some 300 miles away, or are they expecting a general aviation airport? I would venture they are expecting a general aviation airport.

Since MacroNav's post about the unknown backyard airstrips in Alaska, this thread has not been about general aviation airports. There's no disagreement about how to map those.

juliansean wrote: So, while I agree that a purely private strip, made by Joe Bob for his Ag-Cat is not a benefit to the general public, most other airports are in fact useful. And, I think airports should be area [...]

Right, the question originally raised by MacroNav was explicitly confined to the question of private airports that are (1) invisible from the road, (2) most likely unknown to all but a handful of people, and therefore (3) serve no orientation function for drivers. At least, no orientation function that could not also be equally or better served by Waze displaying latitude and longitude lines.

juliansean wrote:If I'm following correctly, this really boils down to how our RC/ARC feel about AP's. In one area, having a little more depth to the app is our new marching orders.

What exactly does "a little more depth to the app" mean?

Let's look again at the airstrip I referred to on the "Lost Coast" of California. This airfield is several miles from any road; as I said, it is used to my knowledge only by a few members of a family that inherited a private inholding among public lands. Nobody else is welcome to use it. Driving Wazers, or even those previewing a route, will never see it, and even if they happen to scroll by it at a zoom level where it will appear, it will mean nothing to them for orientation that the Pacific Ocean(!) does not already provide.

I don't think even the most contorted argument can be made that mapping this private airstrip as an Area Place somehow benefits drivers. So why do we want to display it? What is our "second mandate" besides helping drivers? Saying that "it doesn't hurt drivers, so why not" does not answer that question. Why do we want it on the display in the first place?

To ask this question again in a different way...

Our USA Wazeopedia says that the "Campground/RV Park" category may be mapped as an Area Place. Well, what if I know a family that owns a remote campground. It is in the mountains two days' ride from the nearest trailhead. It is private and only for use by family and friends. It goes without saying that it's almost completely unknown, even to locals, and is invisible from any road. But it is visible from space, due to some structures, picnic tables, and a big meadow with ample grazing. Are we saying the campground in this hypothetical example should be mapped as an Area Place?

Again, there can't be any argument that doing so benefits drivers. There can only be an argument that it doesn't hurt them, but again, that's besides the point. Why do we want to add it?

Is it time for us to start mapping as Area Places all the creeks and ponds throughout the US that are invisible from roads? I have seen people who wanted to do that in Europe discouraged by leading editors there, because doing so didn't help drivers and Waze was not a hydrography app.

But that was a few years ago, and times change. So is Waze now an airstrip app? A campground app? A hydrography app? What is our new "second mandate" beyond helping drivers?

If we as a community are deciding that we now have an additional mandate beyond helping drivers, I think that needs to be very clear, because a lot of people still think that helping drivers get where they need to go as quickly as possible and with the least amount of confusion is our one and only mission.

Thanks, this is well discussed and I agree with much of what you say. There are four things I'd like to expand on.

First, you're combining my points here to some extent with those I made in the Exit Numbers thread. My perspective there was that Exit Number Area Places are a "net negative". I'm not saying they don't have some potential positive value. And, although you've repeatedly suggested this, I'm not saying their negative value is massive. It just means, in my perspective, that the positive value is slight, and although the negative value is also slight, on the whole the balance leans negative. In any event I believe that's a different discussion.

Second, you're pointing out that I have little support in this thread despite talking an awful lot. Believe me, if I felt my perspective was out of line with the Waze editing "zeitgeist" in which I learned to edit, or with my understanding of my regional leadership's perspectives, I would not be so feisty. Please -- and I mean this seriously -- feel welcome to contact my regional (SWR) leadership privately and ask them to inform me that I am on the wrong track. I respect my leadership enormously, I want to support them in this, and if it turns out I'm not doing so I will gladly stand down.

Third, yes, my examples regarding personal campgrounds and hydrography were strawmen in the sense that nobody, at least not in this thread, has explicitly proposed mapping them. However they were not strawmen in the context of what I believe is the proposed policy, i.e., any category listed as eligible for an Area Place in the Great Table may be mapped as an Area Place, complete with a unique and usefully-searchable primary name, if it is exists and is visible in aerial imagery, regardless of all other factors. Indeed, the questions of personal campgrounds and hydrography are commonsense examples of exactly how that policy would manifest were it applied to other Area Place categories besides Airport. Is that not correct?

Fourth, and most important, what I want most of all is to understand the background principles driving this discussion. What I am hearing is that we have additional goals besides benefiting drivers (or, if you wish, we are choosing to define "benefit drivers" so broadly as to include those additional goals). Making decisions more automatic, and thus easier, for editors is a principle that you articulated above. "Having a little more depth to the map" is one another editor articulated earlier.

Please know that I won't -- and can't! -- stand in the way of the community's adoption of broader editing principles beyond helping drivers. I just want those principles stated explicitly because we can't possibly agree on policies if we haven't acknowledged and agreed on the principles behind them.

kentsmith9 wrote: I forgot we already have guidance in the doc for adding additional point places for different terminals including separate arrivals and departures. I think I missed it since the examples did not propose their use. I propose we update with this new table.

I agree.

Finally some guidance on Airport. Thanks a bunch. I think this needs to get posted as soon as agreed upon.

I didn't notice anything I would change/add other than what was already mentioned.

DwarfLord wrote:How about something like this?

Each airport should be drawn as a single area place, covering all airport-managed property and including any open space, parking lots, runways, taxiways, terminal buildings, control towers, orairport tenants, and other structures. This will ensure visibility on the map.

[EDIT: Added parking lots for good measure.]

This sounds pretty good to me

juliansean wrote:Just wanted to bring to everyone's attention that "rental car unified" has an issue. You can only link 4 places and unified rental car places "usually" have way more than four. I am duplicating the place to link the rest as an interim solution.

I told Sean to create duplicate place for now so that he can get all the Google Links accounted for.
Both Place Points = IAH Car Rental Center
but each one has up to 4 Google Links with it.

The only other idea I would have is to add the Car Rental names that are linked to the end of the place name. Not really a fan of it
example would be
Place Point #1 = IAH Car Rental Center - National / Payless / Avis / Hertz
Place Point #2 = IAH Car Rental Center - Budget / Firefly


But I agree, we do need to have guidance on this since most (if not all) unified rental facilities will have more the 4 rental companies

Correct, I was just pointing out that there would be multiple PP. They would actually be identical except the Google Links

So my understanding is that if a car rental facility has 4 or less companies then one PP with all links. If there are more than 4 companies then individual PP with rental agency - Airport name Car Rental. This is due to limitations of Google linking.

Sounds good to me

kentsmith9 wrote:I forgot we already have guidance in the doc for adding additional point places for different terminals including separate arrivals and departures. I think I missed it since the examples did not propose their use. I propose we update with this new table.

I like that table, looks a little easier to follow

I would think "Hertz rental - MSY" and "Hertz car return - MSY"

The Hertz rental is where you go to rent and the car return to return.