sketch wrote:And I assume anything that does have valid GPS points for the whole time won't trigger that particular merger function.
kentsmith9 wrote:But before we go through all this, shouldn't we understand what Waze back end does with this information? If they assume a tunnel when below "ground" elevation, what is happening to our underpasses we have below ground?
sketch wrote:I would imagine whatever Street View says is better than nothing, and nothing is exactly what we have for GPS data in tunnels. I use it sometimes to help in New Orleans, where big old trees can make some roads basically impossible to see from the air.
sketch wrote:Regarding the elevation, I'm basically thinking "why not?" It certainly makes sense to have tunnels at a low but not railroad-low elevation—well; underwater tunnels, anyway, rather than tunnels through mountains and all.
sketch wrote:Should we add a rule that all tunnels shall be set to negative elevations? All to -3 (unless tunnels cross underwater)?
edit Just found this: https://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=212&t=64030
Kentsmith9 to CBenson wrote:If I recall they were using that logic in an upcoming feature for Tunnel recognition, but there was no functionality related to it yet. I would just leave it out of the Wiki, or possibly put it on the talk page of Tunnels after it is built.
sketch wrote:Should we add text explaining that Street View can be used to determine a curved tunnel's geometry, the location of ramps, etc.?
martinchaney wrote:There needs to be some way of marking segments as tunnels so Waze knows not to expect GPS reception in them. As it is, Waze is generating automated map errors because it thinks people are getting more directly from point A to point B and thinks there's a missing road.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users