I'm starting around the area ranging from Kernersville though Stokesdale and up past Summerfield. I'll probably expand some as I get more used to editing. The first things I've been working on are getting gas stations placed correctly as none of them in my area seem to have been set up and are mostly off on the center of a road up to half a mile away. I guess that's probably not uncommon in an area with few people who use Waze.

I've been doing a lot of GIS work lately where I work, so a lot of this is very similar to what I do, though I work with far more layers and break down the look of them a lot more than what we see here. I find it interesting to do, so I'm looking forward to seeing what I might be able to help with here. I've corrected the closed road so it is disconnected. If you'd like to take a look, here is the permalink: https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=10&la ... s=68149491

I'm concerned about the idea of routing through invalid turns. Having it specifically programmed to do that is a guaranteed way to eventually be sued and lose. What happens when someone using Waze follows the directions to take an illegal turn and gets into an accident, possibly killing someone? It is one thing if it was an error on the map. It's something entirely different when it's programmed to route you through illegal turns just to save a little time. All it takes is a lawyer to realize what Waze does and Waze will be in trouble quickly. Also, even if Waze didn't have to worry about being liable for providing potentially dangerous routing, you are going to potentially waste a lot of someone's time who is unwilling to break the law. If you're routed one way to supposedly save a lot of time only to find that you can't legally go that way and if you aren't willing to break the law then depending on the routing, you may have to turn around and drive a long way to get around onto another route. So not only are you risking lawsuits and causing accidents, but you are also potentially adding a lot of time to some people's routes instead of saving them time. It's one thing to route someone through a parking lot to avoid slow traffic (that isn't really legal in the US, but it's rarely enforced) and something else to suggest clearly illegal turns.

I was looking at your example with the additional road saying it's permanently closed. I'm not really sure I'd agree with that. I know I'm new here, but that just seems like a bad option to stick a fake road that would be visible on the map just to say the other road is closed. I saw other posts suggesting using non-displaying features such as railroads if notes are needed. That would at least be a better option, I'd think. Though personally I think Waze should create a layer that is non-displaying everywhere except WME (an editor's note layer) that can be used for adding notes that don't display on any other map - client or web. Through my work with GIS, that wouldn't be all that hard to set up and would solve a lot of communication problems without making fake roads or other features in order to make notes on the map. I'm not trying to sound like I am criticizing it. I'm just trying to get a feel for what is considered the right way of doing things here.

Thanks for the comments and help. I look forward to helping out.

I do understand the reasoning, but using a road segment that is visible in the client seems wrong to me. From reading the forums, railroad segments seem to be recommended for this because they don't currently show on the client. Of course, the recommendation apperas to also say not to do this often or to keep track of everywhere you did it so that you can remove or change them if railroads start appearing in the client in the future. And I added my thoughts on what I think would be better (a feature visible only in the editor specifically designed for leaving notes on the map for other editors). But that would mean a change versus just using railroads, which can be done already.

Ok, I looked at it in the Live Map, so it may just be worse displaying there. In the Live Map, it doesn't look like just a label, but instead looks like a misplaced segment of road with a label down the middle (not end to end). As far as not showing unless driving slowly, I'm assuming that is based on the assumption that the user has the default auto-zoom set up? Or is it not possible to stay zoomed in when driving? I haven't actually changed that setting, so I don't know. When navigating, I like the auto-zoom method, but it doesn't do anything when you're just displaying the map. In those cases, I'd have to zoom in because the map just shows way too much around me unless I happen to be on a highway driving fast. I can basically see almost half way across a medium sized town by default when not navigating. Anyhow, I see where you're coming from if it's not normally visible while driving. And I understand the interest in preventing people from reporting it as an error from the client. I hadn't considered that aspect of it. I do still think we need a notes feature. Maybe it can be made visible everywhere instead of only in the editor, but if so then it should be optional.

Regarding turns, your example with GPS manufacturers is what I mentioned about an error in the mapping. An error is far different legally than a purposeful decision to tell people to take an illegal turn. I'm not a lawyer either, but I really think that's a dangerous slope to be on. And it's been clearly shown in courts at least in the US (and I think also in Europe) that the EULA is a flimsy document and not entirely binding. I would be very surprised if a lawyer didn't win a case where someone was killed or got into an accident because Waze purposefully routed someone illegally. Maybe I'm wrong. It is good to know that it is rare, but I'm wondering how rare it is. The link I gave has you going a few miles around to get to a house on the opposite side of the closed intersection. If you asked for a route from one side to the other, I wonder if there are enough penalty points placed on the turn restriction to prevent Waze from trying to route through the closure instead of sending you a few miles out of your way. Maybe I'll try that one of these days and see what happens. And there are likely many roads in the country where you might have to drive 10 or 20 miles before finding a way to get to the other side of the closure. The penalty would have to be really high. Maybe it is. Oh well, Waze can handle whatever may come from that decision. As long as it doesn't result in many lawsuits that end up causing Waze to go away, then it really doesn't affect me any. It was just a concern.

I'll get used to the practices used here and I'm not trying to be a pain. Just commenting and trying to get a good feel for how to do things.

I was thinking more about this and other instructions for temporary closures and I'm wondering if there may be a better option. Right now, it's suggested to use CONST ZN on the road name for temporary construction closures. Why not do the same thing for permanent closures? "Street Name CLOSED" or "Street Name INTERSECTION CLOSED" or something. Just add a segment at the end right before the closure and change the name to say that. Editors *should* be looking at the street names for clues like that anyhow if we're using CONST ZN, so it should prevent an editor for "fixing" the street. I'm not really sure how things appear from the client side when a road has that as nothing around me appears to use CONST ZN for me to test, but maybe it will show it well enough to also prevent anyone from submitting an error report? Just thinking that something like that would fit with other procedures and should work well. That or have a road closed icon that you can place at the end of a segment with notes on it to show if it's permanent or temporary and expected time to re-open and perhaps even a link to a site/page that shows details about the closure. Then it would be very clear everywhere that it's closed. That option means an update to the software, but the first can be done already. Just some additional thoughts on that.