szahni0 wrote:expect when automated errors suggests missing segments.

Even then nothing may need to be done. Map problem flags should be interpreted as a request for a editor with discretion to determine whether there is an actual problem that needs correction or not.

Or the client could just render them better.

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2

gettingthere wrote:

AlanOfTheBerg wrote: I feel this is a rhetorical question.

So I am the only one believe that when Waze commits to something it's going to get done, quick?

Yes.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 2

Yes, Parking Lot landmarks should never be placed over roads where traffic jams should appear.

I also believe that the Parking Lot landmark has no affect on the client snap to road functionality.

But as I have mentioned many times, Waze should automatically suppress jams when you are x number of feet from a mapped road. We should not have to identify every parking lot worldwide by drawing a landmark.

My vote is for do nothing and live with the false jams until Waze figures out a better way to handle this.

So in regards to #1 and #2 in the OP, I don't know that we should be recommending parking lot roads or landmarks based on any Waze automatically generated missing road map problem in a parking lot.

Edit 6/10/2013 - removed incorrect statement regarding Parking Lot landmarks suppressing traffic jams as Waze has stated in another thread that it does not.

Has Waze provided any updates on what they are planning to do about mapping Parking Lots? Per the Palo Alto Meetup in March 2013, they stated that they are still working on some type of landmark with the ability to mark entries and exits.

AlanOfTheBerg wrote: I feel this is a rhetorical question.

So I am the only one believe that when Waze commits to something it's going to get done, quick?

If Waze would provide a proper solution for Parking Lots so we don't have to put roads in them we wouldn't have to even think about naming them. There is no way to have proper navigation instructions in Parking Lots unless every single lane is mapped and named with the current implementation - and no we should not have to do that.

Of course they also need to address the issues with 'missing road' map errors in Parking lots and suppressing jams when in a parking lot but we have been asking for these fixes for at least 18 months.

The ball is in Waze's court to come up with a proper solution. Now that Google has acquired them I expect our requests to slow even more while they collect their retention bonuses for the next 3 years.

sketch wrote:Staff expressed their desire at this year's WazeMeet, if I am not mistaken, to make parking lots properly navigable. Something like Waze should be able, in the future, where to park and exactly how to get there.

They said that they would look into it...

If they really are thinking to move towards 'micro' navigation to a parking space every lane will need to be mapped and labeled in some fashion to get proper navigation. In addition, there will need to be a layer for space numbers or GPS coordinates of the space to be able to navigate there.

szahni0 wrote:The question still remains, when dealing with small, non-destination point parking lots, what is preferred, segments or landmarks. Considering the majority of Waze Automated Errors are regarding missing road segments are related to people cutting through small corner lots, should these small lots be blocked out as landmarks or road segments?

IMO, you don't need to do anything on the Waze map for these types of lots.

I think the car still appears to snap to the road on the client screen, but Waze is aware of the exact location and if you fall within that landmark, it'll prevent traffic jams on the adjacent roads. If you're actually stopped on the roads adjacent to this type of landmark, you can still automatically generate a traffic jam.

However, I think we need to be careful not to snap the landmark to the actual roads, as this might completely kill traffic reporting for those segments.