This is so awesome. I'm loving this for adding construction work. Once you got the template in, it is easy to add and change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I haven't seen that many system URs' for people using the express lanes. Maybe because by the time Waze figures out you are in the express lanes, you are past the restriction. I don't know, but it is better than it was a year ago.

sbelekevich wrote:
Also, any plans of mentioning mapping/not mapping Metra lines? I've seen a couple forum posts about this topic. This isn't the one I was thinking of, but...

http://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.php ... ns#p178964

Here's one of them. Leaving the Metra tracks has cut down on the Wazing on trains error reports. Problem becomes someone sees the Metra tracks and decides to map the El and freight lines.

ArlenBystander wrote: We can specifically mention the freight and El lines (and stations) as not mapped if we want. As I said in my other post, railroads don't show up in the client anyway (confirmed on my phone). We will inevitably keep getting URs about missing railroads regardless.

I'm for that, no El tracks or freight lines. Can you see downtown with El tracks mapped on the editor. It's a mess with the lower drives.

Love it! This will be a great place to send new editors as opposed to just linking to the Wiki.

One thing I've been doing is mapping parking lots of commercial areas that are next to major roads. I was noticing a lot of false traffic reports and realized they were being caused by cars parked in the lots next to those major roads. I don't snap the parking lots to the roads, but it serves the purpose of suppressing the error if someone is in the parking lot.

According to the CT guidelines I shouldn't be doing this, but I feel like it serves a useful purpose. Let me know what you think.

One thing I considered adding was a name for schools. It helps in the client to see the name of a school and they are a common destination. I'm open to limiting this to larger schools such as high schools and colleges, if necessary, since smaller elementary schools may not show up on the client.

Also, I'm assuming private schools should be included as well. I can modify the Wiki to specify that if we agree it's necessary.

AndyPoms wrote:Which kind of "false traffic report"? Traffic Pins or Color Coded roads?

The color-coded roads is what I was referring to.

I'm fine with parking lot roads instead of the landmarks. I've played around with roads and landmarks in parking lots quite a bit and it seems that using the roads is the best approach. I removed the CT info and added the following to the Wiki:

Parking Lot Landmarks should ONLY be used on parking structures (garages). Parking Lot Landmarks suppress Traffic Jams & Automatic System Detected Errors so care should be taken to ensure they don't snap to roads.

However, false traffic jams may occur because of Wazers parked in a parking lot. To suppress these false traffic jams parking lot roads should be used instead of the Parking Lot Landmark. Follow the guidelines on the Road Types wiki page to make sure you use parking lot roads correctly.

sbelekevich wrote:If only we could get Waze to make PLot roads smaller in the client, then the view would really be cleaner

I second that. I know many others have expressed this opinion and I hope they make that change at some point.

One thing I noticed in the landmarks section that I disagreed with was Camp Sites. I've marked camp sites as parks since only the major ones tend to have POI markers. A lot of camp sites are a part of parks anyway so they may already be marked that way. Any disagreements with that?