Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:32 pm
DwarfLord wrote:I'm still thinking of the dregs-end of the airstrip spectrum here. I have no problem with big long names for major international airports, or even for public regional airports. Small private airfields I have mixed feelings.
But these barely-maintained, not-quite-abandoned, invisible-from-any-road dirt patches in the sticks that we're deciding should get Area Places, should they really display long specific names too? I'm frankly bewildered that these locations have aroused such staunch defense. But if we're going to put them on the Waze display for every Wazer in the region to see, as if they were important, I think the display name needs to convey that they are not really that important. Being short and sweet would help do that. "Private Airstrip" or "Private Airstrip (XYZ1)" would work fine for me.
Mon Mar 11, 2019 4:35 pm
DwarfLord wrote: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?
DwarfLord wrote: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.
Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:10 pm
Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:32 pm
ottonomy wrote:Of course, there's a functional reason why Alaska has an extraordinary number of air strips, but as uncommon as this concentration may be in the rest of the USA, I'm not going to sit here in Los Angeles and proclaim that there is never such a density of spurious "airports" that no exceptions should be made for mapping them as areas.
Whatever language we ultimately adopt for this guidance, it should have some flexibility. An area place next to an open highway displaying an airstrip of questionable map value may indeed be an item which adds richness to the user experience there. But where these backyard "airports" hit the density we see in this part of Alaska, areas for each one would amount to pollution of the visual experience as well as of search results.
MacroNav wrote:In my opinion, creating places that aren't useful to 99.99% of users is a problem, in this scenario:
I'm an infrequent traveler, or I'm in a strange place. I'm running late to catch my flight, so I use Waze to get there as soon as possible. I type in "airport" into search, because who the heck knows which person it's named for, what municipality it's located in, or what indecipherable code letters it uses. Even though there is only one airport with scheduled flights within 100 miles, I see airports scattered all over the map and get pages of results from search within 50 miles. Maybe I select the right one, maybe not. Maybe I miss my flight, maybe not.
Tue Jun 06, 2017 11:55 am
Wed Jun 07, 2017 3:23 am
Mon Mar 04, 2019 3:07 pm
Mon May 08, 2017 10:56 pm
Tue May 09, 2017 11:43 pm
Tue May 09, 2017 11:44 pm