Switch to full style
Post a reply

Re: [Page update] Places#Closed

Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:11 pm

I wholeheartedly agree that if Waze has an ad pin at a place that is permanently closed, we should be requesting the Waze Ad team to remove the ad as part of the place deletion procedure.

I just did some testing -- the WME name, address, telephone fields appear to be overwritten by whatever is in the ad, and the description text and URL do not appear at all. However, the ad does have the WME hours and services.

So, there's no benefit in adding "(permanently closed)" to the place name, or any explanatory text in the description (other than to alert other Waze editors that the place is closed). However there does appear to be benefit in restricting the open hours to 1 minute / week, and waiting for ad deletion confirmation from the Waze ad team as a prerequisite to deleting the place in WME.

Re: [Page update] Places#Closed

Tue Oct 08, 2019 8:01 pm

Yeah, We certainly don't want a requirement to run a particular script to retrieve data that Waze does not make available via WME.

Perhaps an optional step - if an editor is aware of an ad, they should make a deletion request to the Waze ad team similar to any misplaced or otherwise errant ad they encounter. They could change the hours to 1 minute per week, and move to delete the place once they receive confirmation from the Waze ad team.

Re: [Page update] Places#Closed

Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:45 pm

I think it looks good

Re: [Page update] Places#Closed

Fri Aug 17, 2018 9:07 pm

The data on a place does not need a trigger but I was thinking the trigger update is needed for the change from a point to area or area to point.

Re: [Page update] Places#Closed

Sat Aug 18, 2018 2:18 am

Since the name is only shown in the app on area places, I am guessing that the visible name in the app is part of the polygon data and not the details and would require the trigger update for the tiles.

Re: [Page update] Places#Closed

Tue Oct 08, 2019 5:00 pm

I agree that requesting the removal of the ad as part of the deletion procedure would be good, but how would an editor know about the Waze Ad pin without BED? Are we going to require that an editor use BED to use the place deletion procedure?

Beside that, there is no real benefit to leaving the place in WME until removed from the ad IMO, the place could still come back in the next ad campaign by the place and cause problems again or Waze can refuse to delete the ad because of the contract.

I think that it should be only recommended that the editor confirm that there is no Ad Pin associated with the place if they can. As a general rule, the ad pin issues will have to be resolved on a case by case basis when URs lead us that way.

[Page update] Places#Closed

Fri Aug 03, 2018 5:28 pm

Hey, I realized a while back that the closed places procedure was outdated, as linked Google places are hidden in search sometime after they get linked to Waze places, so if you see only a Waze place in the app and delete it, you may expose an un-closed Google place and defeat the whole purpose of the procedure. Also, the table didn't say anything about how to name temporarily closed places if you don't know the reopening date. Furthermore, it's clear GMaps is the only external provider used, at least in the USA, and permanently closed GMaps places don't make it to search. In addition, I thought it would be helpful to specify a few specific things to do with parking lots, gas stations and other area places that minimizes their visibility.

I have updated the table with a new procedure that starts in WME and doesn't involve searching the app. Let me know what you think. A lot of this is in practice already; I would like to get it into national guidance fairly soon, as long as there are no disagreements.


Re: [Page update] Places#Closed

Fri Aug 03, 2018 7:40 pm

ldriveskier wrote:The table formatting between steps 3 and 4 is a bit messed up.

For the temporarily closed places, it seems inconsistent to have "closed until" added to the name, but "reopens" in the comments. In comparison, the under construction places have "opens" in both places. I would recommend changing the "closed until" wording to "reopens" to make that consistent.

Othat than that, I think it looks good!

Fixed! Thanks Lisa

Re: [Page update] Places#Closed

Sun Aug 05, 2018 2:06 am

subs5 wrote:With the 502 errors can't see any of the proposal.

But my understanding is you put the perm closed and leave it there till Google updates their place to show closed. You can remove once it is no longer searchable in Google or Google shows that it is perm closed. Are you suggesting to leave the Waze place (PP/AP) there till the Google link shows red in WMEPH? Or for those that don't use scripts that it is not findable in Google?

I don't mention WMEPH, as the wiki is supposed to be as accessible as possible to those who don't use scripts, and I believe it's mentioned elsewhere on the page.
So you start out linking the Waze place to all relevant Google places, then if your place is linked to nothing or only permanently closed places, delete it and stop. If it is linked to Google places that aren't permanently closed, suggest in GMaps that they be marked as closed, do all the other stuff to make it clear to Wazers that the place is closed, and delete once all the links are marked permanently closed.

Re: [Page update] Places#Closed

Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:33 pm

subs5 wrote:I don't like the wording of Steps 2 & 3.
"2. Use the external provider search to link all relevant Google places; check each link and the general area in Google Maps for more relevant, open places to link.
3.If your place is linked to [a)] nothing, or only places marked permanently closed:
[b)]Google Maps places that aren't permanently closed:"

Step 2 implies that you search for the external Google links. It is too easy to miss that you should add the external Google link(s) if it (they) indicate open. It can be implied but it is too easy for an editor to just read step 3 a and delete the PP/AP in Waze if there isn't an external place linked in Waze.

Would it be worth changing 2. to:
a. Check each existing external provider link(s) to see if it indicates open in Google Maps (need a Rank 2+ editor to complete)
b. Search the general area in Google Maps for other relevant, open places to link.
c. Use the Waze place external provider search to link all relevant Google places that indicate open and link to the Waze place
d. If there is not a Google Map place that indicates open

Actions for a-c continue to the next step.
Action for step d (perm closed place is Delete the place and stop, temp closed or under construction is continue to the next step

Does that seem reasonable to you?

Also doesn't an editor need to be R2 to do an external link search? That is why I stated (R2+ required in the proposed step a above.

Yes, place linking is R2+. I can add the rank template in there.

I like clarifying these steps. I wasn't quite sure how to fit what you proposed into the table but did what I could. I think we need to keep the discovery steps separate from the decision to delete or continue based on what is found. Since there are multiple steps taken to discover and add open Google places, I added a few steps to make the table reflect that. I also removed "<<" cells and changed some column spans to remove white space for the first few steps.
Post a reply