POI may be a term to keep around, so the uninformed have something to equate places with in their minds. It is a common term that most people are familiar with. I liked that it was there simply to point out "this is our version of the POI".

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2

voludu2 wrote:I can add it back. Perhaps it is regional. I never hear the term point of interest.

I don't think it is so much geographically regional, as it is common to those familiar with certain very popular commercial GPS devices.

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2

DwarfLord wrote:The category compendium under When to use Area or Point lists several categories whose decision logic is simply "Size dependent". This language implies that horizontal size alone can make a location worthy of an Area Place.

I'm reluctant to agree with that implication. Covering a lot of land doesn't necessarily mean a location stands out from its surroundings in any way that could be useful to drivers seeking a destination or trying to orient themselves.

The four categories that specifically worry me are:

• Conventions / Event Center
• Factory / Industrial
• Offices
• Camping / Trailer Park

I would like to propose that, for these four categories, we remove the "Size dependent" option supporting Area Places and specify that they be represented as "Point" only, with a comment that says "unless landmark". Then, to accommodate things of those categories (and any other category) that really are landmarks, I'd like to offer an addition to this section of the article that defines the term "landmark" and allows them to be mapped as Area Places.

This proposed "landmark" addition to the Places article may be found here:

http://wiki.waze.com/wiki/User:DwarfLord/Landmarks

Comments welcome!

Your proposal for landmark status is already mentioned in the lead on the current page

Therefore, it is important to use area places only when they are distinctive and significant enough to orient drivers, Exceptions include gas stations, and parking lots which receive special handling.

Followed by this message introducing the table, which says that the table is just there as an aid, but is not absolute.

The the table of Place categories and types, provides guidelines to help map editors decide between point and area places.

Making those all be point in the table, still allows for "distinctive and significant" places to be areas.

Perhaps it you could expound on the distinctive etc.. To make it stand out better and be more understandable. Maybe it should be moved to just above the table.

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2

DwarfLord wrote:Thanks. It sounds as if you (1) agree that the phrase "size dependent" can be removed from the table for the four categories I listed, (2) agree that an Area Place may be assigned to any Place provided it qualifies as a landmark, and (3) do not find value in any part of the proposed additional text explaining what a landmark is and is not.

I am OK with removing the phrase "Size dependent" from the four categories listed and ensuring they say "Point" only, and leaving any other change for another time.

I personally agree with (1) and (2). I didn't read your proposed text yet, and make comment on it, I'm just showing live precedent from the existing guidelines supporting your idea.

Although I personally agree you should wait a few days, and give others a chance to weigh in and build consensus.

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2

bretmcvey wrote:I've ran some route testing where a parking lot area for a campus lot prevented routing down an obvious street, slight route suggestion changes as well when I pulled back a gas station area from the edge of a road.

I'm in the camp of reducing area noise by using some creative license and snapping towards a road, but it does appear even if slight that parking lot areas and gas station areas could cause trouble. So I've recently started moving my gas station areas especially just a bit back from the adjacent streets.

If I'm wrong in this assumption let me know, but in running tests, it appears to be directly related.

Best practices dictate area places should never be snapped to roads. It makes selection of the nodes, geo-nodes, etc. much harder afterwards.

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2

ialangford wrote:I like the proposal, especially the difference between "local reference" and "landmark", but please define "retailer". My suggestion is this:

"Retailer" doesn't just include a typical retail store like Kohls but also groceries, supermarkets, restaurants, auto part stores, etc. Anything where you can walk in and buy something is a "retailer".

On the other hand I propose that landmark office buildings, research facilities, and factories dedicated to a single company are not excluded by the retailer rule, but should be affixed with some sort of suffix. Therefore, the Bluecross Blueshield headquarters should have "HQ" or "Headquarters" affixed to the end instead of being called simply "Bluecross Blueshield". Similarly, it should be "Michelin Manufacturing" instead of just "Michelin". If there is a way of further distinguishing the factory, it should be used in addition to the suffix. Thus, it's called "Roche Carolina Manufacturing" instead of "Roche Manufacturing" or "Roche Carolina".

If Michelin or blue cross blue shield is the name, why are we modifying to add more (creative subjective) verbiage, which will make the name longer, use more valuable screen real estate?

Longer names also may prevent the name from displaying on the client screen when other elements are nearby.

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2

ialangford wrote:Geez yall, the naming was a minor point. The point is "retailer" vs. "non-retailer". The naming was a suggestion. Sorry I didn't make that clear! I was following from we don't want "Walmart" on the map, so we probably don't want just "Michelin" either. Usually those places have longer names anyways (Michelin Lexington Manufacturing is the one near me).

Personally if Walmart is big with a tall sign visible from a mile away, iconic and well known, I don't see why it, Costco, and others shouldn't be on the map. If its visually distinctive, why not put it there? Because we're worried that Joe schmoe will be jealous; well he has all the right to build a big visually distinctive shop too, and we'll be glad to give him an area as well. This is a driving app, let's stick to what helps drivers. If drivers can orient to a massive McDonalds M, then map it as an area, if its a small store front McDonalds with the M on a 2foot aluminum side, it gets a point.

It's not or job to worry about one corporation getting jealous they are under represented, the same way it's not our job to cater to residents in SoCal complaint about about Waze increasing traffic on their formerly quiet and unknown street.

/rant, now ask me how i really feel.

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2

If you're worried that mere presence of a retail place area will be misconstrued as an add and therefore discredit all place areas, I don't believe that to be the case. Has anyone claimed this happened to them, or is this a speculation of something that may rarely happen?

If I saw a very blob on the screen that said Walmart, then looked up and saw a towering blue and white Walmart sign in the near distance, id think to myself, that's where the Walmart is. I think it's pretty obvious to the average user if you see a name is something defined in a set place on a map, that you'll find said place in that location. If one Starbucks is really big and conspicuous, than so what if there are others, they I still think its helpful to map the conspicuous one.

Why would a retailer be misconstrued as an ad any more than any other commercial entity. Why would Walmart be thought of as an ad any more than say the so-and-so museum, XYZ Shopping Mall, or the mayo clinic for example?

Maybe the apple store should be area, I haven't seen it and it hasn't been proposed. If an editor made the argument that it was visually distinctive and recognizable from at least a mediocre distance, I would support it being a place.

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2

You can currently search for nearby fast food by entering [fast food] (without the brackets) in the search box of the app

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2

DwarfLord wrote:An editor in my area recently created a large red Area Place for administrative/field-support offices belonging to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Technically this is indeed a "Fire Department" and so it is eligible for an Area Place under the Great Table of Area vs Point.

However, this application seems at odds with our practice for emergency facilities, in particular our conclusion to use the Hospital / Medical Care Place category only for Places offering urgent medical care. So I would like to add the following comments for the "Fire Department" category:

ONLY fire stations intended, equipped, and staffed to respond to nearby emergencies should use this category. All other fire-department locations, including training, administrative or field-support facilities, should use the Office (and/or any other appropriate) category instead.

Agreement? Objections?

Agree