Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Moderator: Unholy

Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby mssusa » Mon Jan 07, 2013 1:28 pm

:lol:
It was meant to be a joke on HQ for their infamous soon/working on it/etc.

But seriously, it might be a good idea to put CT as is in the general wiki for the time being. It is better than nothing. Much better actually.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
mssusa
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 7:27 am
Location: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby Daknife » Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:04 am

That's an idea, but this thread (with participation of several Champs and active CM's) had already come to a general consensus as to the limited nature and scope of landmarks. Why do we need to wait for the Champs to come to a second exclusive consensus? and then get to thrash that all out again.

Edited to add that the CT list is pretty good, but excludes some landmarks accepted in this thread such as significant Religious landmarks, while excluding everyday houses of worship. This is a point here in Utah where there is an LDS (Mormon) Chapel on every other block in some areas, those I've always excluded (I am LDS) as well as all other regular houses of worship, but LDS Temples are considered special destinations even here in Utah where we have 12 of them, and thus I've allowed them as well as the Hare-Krishna Temple and the one Catholic Cathedral in the State. Similarly in this thread it was mentioned and not contested (and thus accepted in my understanding) that bodies of water that are common driver navigation landmarks and are NOT found in the water layer are allowed. The river running the length of the Salt Lake Valley, the Jordan River, is not in the water layer for most of it's length so I've just authorized the editor who has been begging to add it, to do so.
Image
AM in Utah; CM USA
Utah Forum: Utah Forum
Samsung Galaxy S4 running 4.4 KitKat on Sprint
Daknife
Waze Mentor
Waze Mentor
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:03 pm
Location: Riverdale, Utah
Has thanked: 456 times
Been thanked: 227 times

Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby AndyPoms » Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:53 am

daknife wrote:That's an idea, but this thread (with participation of several Champs and active CM's) had already come to a general consensus as to the limited nature and scope of landmarks. Why do we need to wait for the Champs to come to a second exclusive consensus? and then get to thrash that all out again.
Mainly because people don't follow directions & with something this large in scope, and by breaking it down into smaller groups that hopefully can follow directions long enough so I can actually tally up their thoughts on it.

daknife wrote:Edited to add that the CT list is pretty good, but excludes some landmarks accepted in this thread such as significant Religious landmarks, while excluding everyday houses of worship. This is a point here in Utah where there is an LDS (Mormon) Chapel on every other block in some areas, those I've always excluded (I am LDS) as well as all other regular houses of worship, but LDS Temples are considered special destinations even here in Utah where we have 12 of them, and thus I've allowed them as well as the Hare-Krishna Temple and the one Catholic Cathedral in the State.
We had a discussion around "Major" religious sites where we decided to define it as "things like the Vatican, Kaaba, Western Wall – which CT has none... Agree, not mapped.Done, until the Vatican is moved to CT, then we may reconsider." (colors are different users). The Mormon Temples would certainly warrant a discussion, although we did specifically talk about St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC, I'm not sure where we landed on that one - we might have dropped the discussion because it's not in CT.

daknife wrote:Similarly in this thread it was mentioned and not contested (and thus accepted in my understanding) that bodies of water that are common driver navigation landmarks and are NOT found in the water layer are allowed. The river running the length of the Salt Lake Valley, the Jordan River, is not in the water layer for most of it's length so I've just authorized the editor who has been begging to add it, to do so.
That is something we're still looking into - we're currently having issues figuring out what's in the water layer and what's not. We wanted to get the basics out first (so we had something to point users towards) and would continue working on these things later...
Image
Waze Champ & Forum Moderator
USA Country Manager
Senior Area Manager: State of Connecticut
Wiki: Editing | Best Practices | FAQ
AndyPoms
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 7116
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:34 pm
Location: Hartford, CT
Has thanked: 128 times
Been thanked: 1294 times

Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby Daknife » Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:29 am

Okay but you exclude a number of very concerned CM's and even AM's who are trying to enforce the editing guidelines in their area's. The Wiki is currently worthless in regards to landmarks. We had a very good discussion in this thread. It seemed like a general consensus was achieved here, one that involved more active editors than just the exclusive champs. And then you decide to just toss that and exclude those who haven't been able to make it to a meet-up from the discussion. One that has already been had and to my opinion an agreement or at least a baseline was achieved. One that is similar but different from the list in the CT wiki page.

Meanwhile the average editor who cares enough to try to follow the wiki is given nothing to work with in regards to landmarks. So we end up with messes like in thread I linked to a few posts ago where so much is landmarked that landmarks become worthless.
Image
AM in Utah; CM USA
Utah Forum: Utah Forum
Samsung Galaxy S4 running 4.4 KitKat on Sprint
Daknife
Waze Mentor
Waze Mentor
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:03 pm
Location: Riverdale, Utah
Has thanked: 456 times
Been thanked: 227 times

Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby AndyPoms » Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:59 am

daknife wrote:Okay but you exclude a number of very concerned CM's and even AM's who are trying to enforce the editing guidelines in their area's. The Wiki is currently worthless in regards to landmarks. We had a very good discussion in this thread. It seemed like a general consensus was achieved here, one that involved more active editors than just the exclusive champs. And then you decide to just toss that and exclude those who haven't been able to make it to a meet-up from the discussion. One that has already been had and to my opinion an agreement or at least a baseline was achieved. One that is similar but different from the list in the CT wiki page.

Meanwhile the average editor who cares enough to try to follow the wiki is given nothing to work with in regards to landmarks. So we end up with messes like in thread I linked to a few posts ago where so much is landmarked that landmarks become worthless.


I don't see much of a consensus here at all - and no logical organization of the discussion either, it's just everyone throwing in their two cents here and there...

I never said anything about doing this at a meet-up. And I'm surprised at you thinking this thread won't be looked at by the champs for user's opinions as we craft a recommendation. As well as you ignoring me saying that once the champs come up with their recommendation, it should be released to the userbase for comments and possible revision BEFORE becoming final.

HOWEVER, several of the champs have said to just take the CT guidelines, make some tweaks (mainly the CT specific wording) let the champs comment & publish it.

Where do you see differences between the CT Guidelines & what you see as agreed upon in this thread? Please cite specific posts (click on the title) and I'll look at them.
Image
Waze Champ & Forum Moderator
USA Country Manager
Senior Area Manager: State of Connecticut
Wiki: Editing | Best Practices | FAQ
AndyPoms
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 7116
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:34 pm
Location: Hartford, CT
Has thanked: 128 times
Been thanked: 1294 times

Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby Daknife » Thu Jan 10, 2013 10:00 pm

You are right that it is jumbled but the points where I see consensus where when someone would post a view on acceptable landmarks and nobody really questioned it. When there were questions and debate there was obviously no consensus but there are a few points where acceptable landmark types were given and not questioned or argued further.

Your own list was mostly supported
https://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=276&t=26005&start=10#p248225But you've changed the religious sites item.
Mapcat made a very valid point on water
https://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=276&t=26005&start=20.
As was addressed by me above when I mentioned that most of a significant river running through the main population center of Utah is NOT in the water layer. I had been regularly deleting any attempt to put it in with landmarks until another local editor pointed out mapcat's post. And in the very next post you agreed with him in effect that if it's not there then it can be mapped. Nobody else contradicted that point.

Some other areas:
Multiple posters including Jason300 mentioned that they keep cemeteries as many came in with the basemap import.

Military bases: I use the landmark for because there are large areas of those bases that do not have roads to maintain the "City" border. That and the landmark for Hill AFB in my case was there before I started editing. I've adjusted it but felt no need to delete it as it does mark a significant landmark/travel obstacle that must be gone around rather than through.

Other thoughts I have on the list, which I would love to share (thus my biggest aggravation in the discussion being pulled out from under those of us who really care but haven't been able to make it to a meet-up to get the Waze Champ tag (and I can't make the one in march since they chose a drill weekend so I'll be busy playing soldier), and who were very involved in the discussion. Anyway other thoughts, I don't see the value of marking firedepts, people very rarely go to the fire dept it's the other way around. There is no real value as a commuter to seeing the fire dept on the screen. Police on the other hand is another matter. A good safety trick for someone being followed or harassed is to drive to the police dept. And more importantly I have every PD in UT labeled (<City name> Police Dept) my local editors like it as well. I also like marking all golf courses as Parks rather than sporting complexes because I feel the green fits them better. Again several of my local editors agree on this. Plus the green helps see at a glance that it's not just another random mall up ahead but either a park or a GC. So that would be one thing I would suggest for discussion.

Stadiums I include the attached parking lots in the overall shape unless an actual street runs between the complex and the lot. But part of the reason for that is to discourage newer editors from deciding to landmark every parking lot out there. I fully support limiting it to Park and Ride, and maybe free public parking lots in cities. But not paid or just lots belonging to businesses.

I do have another suggestion for discussion, in regards to junctions. Specifically in the night mode at least land-marked junctions don't always show up (don't know why but I've verified this personally). I was trying something to get rid of a part of the Portola Valley Smudge in NV at very rural interchange. I put a landmark but the local I was working with said that while the LM did show up with the exit name, the "City name"(Portola Valley) was larger and bolder. So I then deleted and re-citied every road I could see within the screen, and then relabled the road segment over the freeway with the exit number (example) <Exit 142:> I admit to forgetting where that exit was to go check so I tried it again on a couple rural exits in Utah. I think it works great (but only in rural areas where there are no cities anywhere near. It creates a mini city just for the interchange, and that exit name show's up big and bright on the map as you approach it, and as you are skimming over the map if pre-planning a route. I've only done it on a couple, but I think it's something that should be considered as a proposal for rural exits with no city right there. for an example Note the village the exit is named for is still several miles away and other than the road leading to that village (we call it a town but it doesn't really qualify as that anymore) all other roads leading from that interchange are dirt. And I kept the city designation to only the actual overpass so it keeps the designator small. Again this would probably not work anywhere near a real city.

Don't lock us out of the discussion please, I do recognize that it's hard keeping it on topic when just anyone can post. And periodically someone would come in and post something contrary to what had been discussed before but usually that was straightened out. The CT list isn't bad, but I don't feel it's quite correct and most importantly I don't like being kicked out of a discussion I was very active in. I am a strong advocate of the fewer landmarks the better but really need a concrete list I can point my local editors to. I guess I'll try taking the CT list, editing it to how we want it in Utah and we'll just end up with 50 sets of state specific editing standards. Don't start a discussion in the public realm and then try to pull it out from under us.
Image
AM in Utah; CM USA
Utah Forum: Utah Forum
Samsung Galaxy S4 running 4.4 KitKat on Sprint
Daknife
Waze Mentor
Waze Mentor
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:03 pm
Location: Riverdale, Utah
Has thanked: 456 times
Been thanked: 227 times

Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby jasonh300 » Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:05 pm

daknife, we fully intend to take the opinions of everyone interested in this subject into consideration before publishing the final guidelines for landmarks. The plan was to bring the proposal before the Champs, and get a basis approved, and then open it for discussion in the open forum.

Also, bear in mind that there are going to be some exceptions in different localities. We just want something to point to so that when a new editor comes in and starts landmarking every McDonald's and Burger King, we're not left with a bunch of questions when we PM that user to explain that they're not doing the right thing. California may want to landmark earthquake shelters...something that would be completely useless in Louisiana, etc. New Orleans is famous for the architecture of the old churches and the cemeteries are a big tourist attraction...that is probably not the case in most other places. There will have to be an exception list for each state.

No matter what happens, the Champs have to make the final decision, as that is one of the function of the Champs group (to create, maintain and enforce the editing guidelines).

Also, please note that attendance of the Wazemeet does not automatically admit one into the Champs group. Likewise, failure to attend does not necessarily preclude one from becoming a Champ.
Image
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
South-Central Regional Coordinator
(LA/MS/AR...contact karlcr9911 for TX/OK related issues)
U.S. Champ, Global Champ
Waze FAQ ... Best Map Editing Practice
Ask me about Louisiana Editors Chat in Google Hangouts!
jasonh300
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 7564
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:26 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA, USA
Has thanked: 401 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby AndyPoms » Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:11 pm

You're correct, there are certainly some changes that have to be made to the CT list to make it National Friendly and part of what I'm working on proposing to the champs first will include a lot of language similar to "Please see local Wiki Pages / local Area Managers for information on what is considered 'Major' and mapped for this category in your area". We will still need local guidelines/specifics.

Religious Sites: Did you see my post above that puts some info about the discussion we had in CT? The one where we decided to landmark "Major" sites & quickly decided that CT had none, so we moved on, but the "Major" discussion is still valid. That's something that would be included the National Guidelines. The basic idea was if the religious site was one which someone would make a pilgrimage to/visit as a tourist attraction, it should probably be mapped - but like I said, we quickly decided that CT doesn't have any (well, since the Holy Land park closed).

Water: I posted above that we were working on figuring out what was there & what wasn't in CT. We did the original work on the guidelines for CT when there were issues with the water layer & we didn't want to mess with it. I would certainly agree (as would the other CT users) that if it's not on the water layer, and is significant it should probably be mapped - HOWEVER, we need to talk to Waze about this as they may be adding other water bodies (they are mostly working on coastlines now) and un-submerging roads.

Cemeteries: Yes, a lot were basemapped, not all were. What value do the add? In CT, we're not going around deleting them, but we aren't adding them either.

Military Bases: There will be exceptions to every guideline as we can't write anything that is iron clad because we need flexibility. You mention Hill AFB, and it's landmarked so people don't go through the base, but 1) isn't there a fence around the entire base? 2) aren't all the roads on base a mix of "Private" and "Parking Lot" (preventing Waze from routing through the base already)? At Naval Submarine Base New London we have to keep renaming the on-base gas station to "NEX Fueling (NO PUBLIC ACCESS)" as we don't want to get complaints about unauthorized people trying to go there from off base. We've tried to reach out to a few of the on-base users (based on their editing) to work more on their map (including landmarks), but they haven't responded. Overlapping landmarks causes issues which is one of the bigger reasons we went with the city layer.

Fire Dept: In most places they are considered a "Safe Haven" and you can get emergency medical care there or if they are on a call there is a call box out front. Most maps mark these - It's worth it.

Police Dept: The City/Town name just adds unnecessary words to the map. In your example does the person being followed care if they are going to "Anytown Police Dept" or "Othertown Police Dept"? No, they just care they are going to a "Police Dept", any Police Dept. Anyway, if one were to search, they would use POI search, not landmarks. It's there to help people see it on the map.

Golf Courses: Private Courses will appear in POI Search or can buy advertising from Waze. This falls under the "Don't map individual businesses" guideline.

Stadiums: They just look cooler with the shape & the parking lot roads handle the jams & missing roads reports. It was something we played with before making this decision.

Interchanges: The issue is that larger, more complex interchanges would be very hard to build, label & control. The problem with "hacking" the city layer like that is that a report on the overpass will display as "Main St, <Exit #>" instead of the town where it is.

Other things of note, one does not have to attend a meetup to become a Champ. No one has said anything about locking the userbase out of the discussion, in fact I said the opposite several times.
Image
Waze Champ & Forum Moderator
USA Country Manager
Senior Area Manager: State of Connecticut
Wiki: Editing | Best Practices | FAQ
AndyPoms
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 7116
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:34 pm
Location: Hartford, CT
Has thanked: 128 times
Been thanked: 1294 times

Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby Bigbear3764 » Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:08 am

AndyPoms wrote:Fire Dept: In most places they are considered a "Safe Haven" and you can get emergency medical care there or if they are on a call there is a call box out front. Most maps mark these - It's worth it.



Maybe because I work at one, but I agree. In Illinois, they are a safe haven to drop off new borns, no questions asked.
Image Image
AM Chicagoland Area ILL Functional Class Map
CM North America
ILL Wiki
ILL To-Do
Bigbear3764
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 2561
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:02 pm
Location: Island Lake, IL USA
Has thanked: 188 times
Been thanked: 928 times

Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby AndyPoms » Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:15 am

bigbear3764 wrote:
AndyPoms wrote:Fire Dept: In most places they are considered a "Safe Haven" and you can get emergency medical care there or if they are on a call there is a call box out front. Most maps mark these - It's worth it.



Maybe because I work at one, but I agree. In Illinois, they are a safe haven to drop off new borns, no questions asked.

I had that in my response, but took it out at the last minute as I wasn't sure if it was just something in the North East.
Image
Waze Champ & Forum Moderator
USA Country Manager
Senior Area Manager: State of Connecticut
Wiki: Editing | Best Practices | FAQ
AndyPoms
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 7116
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:34 pm
Location: Hartford, CT
Has thanked: 128 times
Been thanked: 1294 times

PreviousNext

Return to Wiki Updates and Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users