Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Moderator: Unholy

Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby davipt » Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:20 am

Timbones wrote:I don't see how ownership is relevant. Waze is for drivers, and parking lot landmarks should denote the tarmac on which they can park. There's no value including any other land.


At the current state on the client, landmarks are useless except for conveying some visual messages on the client to help the user identify areas on the map (except gas stations search obviously). As there are only three relevant colors AFAICS, it's only relevant to draw water bodies, green lands and others stuff with meaningful names or known designs, independently of the landmark type. Hence the discussion if a mall should have one landmark type mall, one type parking, or two separate ones. In the end it's irrelevant for me, as I refuse to write "mall name" and "mall name parking" as it would pollute the map with labels and hence one or two landmarks will be seen the same on the client. The parking information is clearly identified by the main street segments to enter and leave the park or the building in case of inside parking, not by the landmark.

Also, these kind of remarks reminds me of a common mistake (IMHO) I see a lot and struggle to educate my editors: Waze is meant to help navigating with the simples possible map segment grid (no roundabouts Y, no parallel streets, no junction trees, etc.) and, to keep in context with this thread, landmark visual cues. Waze is *not* to draw what is seen on the satellite images.

So, again, albeit I understand your (plural) points and have other cases where your comments are justifiable, in this particular case it is not, and that's why I'm picking it as an example of promoting simple visual messages on the client instead of satellite correctness: the whole shopping mall area, including the buildings and the parking lot, goes up to the freeway. On that green area there's even big billboards promoting the shopping mall. It's irrelevant if the green is a parking or not, because the park is denoted by the segments. On the other hand the area on the left side does not belong to that mall, hence why it doesn't snap there.

If I were to draw only the limits of the tarmac, the client would show an empty space up to the freeway, which for me looks ugly as hell.

And to conclude, personally I do prefer to fix up the segments around, lock when justifiable, and snap the landmarks to each node of the segment, to avoid any gaps in between. It looks much nicer and efficient on the client. As I stated before, some kind of edits should be done with the satellite layer turned off and/or by looking at the client at the same time as the editing. What is seen on the client is the only thing that matters!
Bruno D. Rodrigues | Global Champ & Coordinator for Portugal | iPhone Beta
Forum PT | Wiki PT | Facebook PT | Twitter PT
davipt
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5150
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Oeiras, Portugal
Has thanked: 288 times
Been thanked: 611 times

Re: Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby davipt » Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:42 pm

jasonh300 wrote:
Timbones wrote:
davipt wrote:Here's a case of mall+plot example

I don't think the parking lot landmark in this example should be touching the Freeway. For one thing there's a huge green area separating the two.


Exactly...it's just bad form. Especially when the N249-2 was so carefully avoided.


It's a question of who owns the land. Next to the freeway (north side) the green area (a small hill, the freeway is some 10m higher than the street of the mall) belongs to the shopping map - meaning from the freeway one can only see the mall -, but the area between the mall and the N249-2 to the left is some other industry I can't recall to take note when I pass by, and hence it should have another landmark between the N249-2 and the mall's parking lot. If the green area would be some kind of public green park it would then be a separate landmark.

In simpler words, I tend to draw landmarks with the satellite layer disabled, so it looks nice on the client without affecting the real world. And hence why I always snap to the streets unless the landmark is a well known design potentially identifiable on the client.
Bruno D. Rodrigues | Global Champ & Coordinator for Portugal | iPhone Beta
Forum PT | Wiki PT | Facebook PT | Twitter PT
davipt
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5150
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Oeiras, Portugal
Has thanked: 288 times
Been thanked: 611 times

Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby davipt » Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:43 pm

paulwelch23 wrote:If there's a strip mall with several shops along a highway, what should be mapped? Only the parking lot to suppress a jam? The shopping center in general, also? Individual shops? I've seen it done a number of ways, but which is the best?


I usually create one landmark for the mall building and a landmark around it for the open-air parking lot, and give the same name to both. The parking lot landmark is irrelevant for the traffic jam according to waze and several tests - only parking lot roads do suppress traffic. Both landmarks will be seen as one, as the colour is the same, but I'd rather have two than only one for the parking lot. I'll never create individual shops, unless they are quite big ones in a very very large mall place, and even then only the ones that are quite big.

If there is no open-air parking, I only create the mall, example.
Sometimes even if the parking is open, but smaller than the mall, I also avoid the parking lot landmark. example
Here's a case of mall+plot example
Bruno D. Rodrigues | Global Champ & Coordinator for Portugal | iPhone Beta
Forum PT | Wiki PT | Facebook PT | Twitter PT
davipt
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5150
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Oeiras, Portugal
Has thanked: 288 times
Been thanked: 611 times

Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby davipt » Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:53 pm

antigerme wrote:
Wolfeye wrote:Could we get some proof of that?


I covered the entire route with landmark Parking Lot. :mrgreen:


thanks for the test! I hope it's clear for everybody now.
Bruno D. Rodrigues | Global Champ & Coordinator for Portugal | iPhone Beta
Forum PT | Wiki PT | Facebook PT | Twitter PT
davipt
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5150
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Oeiras, Portugal
Has thanked: 288 times
Been thanked: 611 times

Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby davipt » Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:45 am

Wolfeye wrote:
antigerme wrote:Landmark not suppress traffic jams, is a myth.

Could we get some proof of that?


Could we get some proof otherwise? Anyone willing to create a huge parking lot landmark over a heavy traffic area and see if the automatic traffic information (red/yellow streets) and user reports (traffic, police, etc.) will mysteriously disappear?
Bruno D. Rodrigues | Global Champ & Coordinator for Portugal | iPhone Beta
Forum PT | Wiki PT | Facebook PT | Twitter PT
davipt
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5150
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Oeiras, Portugal
Has thanked: 288 times
Been thanked: 611 times

Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby Daknife » Fri Jan 11, 2013 2:55 am

Okay, Jason but that's not what I was told. I was told that the discussion "had" been moved to the Champs, as in it was ongoing there without the rest of us having any knowledge of it or input into it. What should have been said was something to the effect of, "Good point Dakife, this has kind of dropped off the radar, we'll move all that has been said to the champs and finalize it over the next few days, and then we'll get the wiki updated."
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: 3366
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:03 pm
Location: Riverdale, Utah
Has thanked: 456 times
Been thanked: 229 times

Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby Daknife » Fri Jan 11, 2013 2:10 am

AndyPoms wrote: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.

Okay a couple points of First as to religious sites, you will soon have an LDS Temple in Hartford (you don't have to map it) ;) and members do make pilgrimage like trips to them if they don't live near one. In the US these trips are now mostly day trips because there are enough of our Temples, but many members still make an excursion of a trip. In other parts of the world members sacrifice and save greatly to be able to travel to a Temple just once in their lives. So while not on par by any means with Mecca or other similar sites, these are significant locations. Similarly in Utah we don't have a strong catholic presence but we do have one historical cathedral built about the same time as the Salt Lake City Temple and I made sure it was mapped as it is of importance historically as well as religiously.

Stadiums, okay I can buy the cooler shape argument, but when you map them to their shape that tells newbies to map other buildings to their shapes. Let's be consistent. If it's a large complex (building and parking lots) make it one large landmark just like malls, universities, and so on.

Golf Courses, what tripped me up I now see is the word Private. Most of our Golf courses are publicly owned, and it's not worth the effort to determine which is which, so I've just told my editors to mark em all as parks.

Fire Depts, When there is an insta-care clinic with actual medical personnel usually closer than a fire dept, I'd map those clinics before fire depts. Yes they are also the safe haven for abandoning children, but how common is that actually and a POI search will do just as well. I guess my real objection to it though comes from dealing with editors who wanted to landmark everything and trying to limit them. I just don't see the value in marking them. Yes I know most maps do but still have never seen the need for that either, other than it dates from when the town fire-hall would often double as the town hall or town meeting hall. And half the men in town were members of the volunteer FD force.

As to the Interchange "hack" no it doesn't affect reporting negatively. A report on the overpass will report as being in (if you look at the linked example) Manderfield Exit, Utah, not Manderfield Ut. Any reports on the neighboring roads won't give a city name in the report. And if there is a problem that points me right to the exit rather than the city. As I said before, this will only work in rural areas well away from any actual city. Another location I tried this has Just the exit number as the name. [urlhttps://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=5&lat=38.07154&lon=-112.6882&layers=BFTFFTTTTTTTTTTTFTTTTFT]Exit 95, Utah[/url] Again I'm not set on this, I think it's clever, I think it works. It always shows up on the client whereas the landmarks do not. As with this one at the south side of Nephi, UT. I just verified that the landmark I placed there months ago does not show in the client in day or night mode, and thus the exit number does not show, which is what I think we really want them to show.

And to Jason, thanks for the info, my biggest frustration here, even more than being or at least feeling excluded from the discussion is the fact that while you guys have been debating this in secret, I've been battling for months with no set resource to point editors to and say "This is how it is to be done." There was a good discussion going, then it suddenly died it seemed to me that lacking anyone taking the initiative and editing the Wiki or saying "Okay it sounds like most people seem to agree with XXX" most editors seemed to just be going along with what had been said that wasn't immediately shot down. Give me (well I just created a Utah guideline page so it's not so important now) something to point new editors at and I'll be happy. Taking the discussion behind closed doors, with no statement to that effect and leaving me with nothing to point new editors at has caused great frustration. I finally had to get one editor banned for a bit as he simply wasn't responding to any effort to get him to communicate, and he stated that lacking any set wiki instructions, he was just trying to mark all the landmarks the drop-down list let him mark.
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: 3366
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:03 pm
Location: Riverdale, Utah
Has thanked: 456 times
Been thanked: 229 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: 3366
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:03 pm
Location: Riverdale, Utah
Has thanked: 456 times
Been thanked: 229 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: 3366
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:03 pm
Location: Riverdale, Utah
Has thanked: 456 times
Been thanked: 229 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: 3366
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:03 pm
Location: Riverdale, Utah
Has thanked: 456 times
Been thanked: 229 times

PreviousNext

Return to Wiki Updates and Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users