Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Moderators: krankyd, Unholy

Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby shawndoc » Wed Sep 12, 2012 3:57 am

I have a question. How should national forest land be covered? Currently, its one GIGANTIC landmark in the client. The problem I'm running into, is there are numerous cities within this gigantic landmark. And its impossible for me to select any existing landmarks, as any time I try to click on one, the National Forest landmark is selected instead. Do we really need landmarks that cover hundreds of square miles of mountain land, including all forest, roads, etc?
California, USA - OC/LA/SB/Riverside L5 Country Editor
shawndoc
Beta tester
Beta tester
 
Posts: 1490
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:44 am
Location: Californialand, USA
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 249 times

Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby shawndoc » Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:33 am

mtlgab wrote:@Jpere ... I agree with you, but as you can see, in 3 posts we went off subject.

There are lots of issues that need to be fixed and that need rules.

To get back to the subject. "Landmarks".
I did a few edits and I tested some of them, so here are my observations:
1- Small stores have no visibility on the client (iphone4s) ... minimum size required..


From the UK landmark page:
"Landmarks smaller than about 1600m² (40m x 40m) won't appear on the client, so there's no point adding them to the map. (A standard build McDonald's with Drive-thru is approximately 1000m²) "
California, USA - OC/LA/SB/Riverside L5 Country Editor
shawndoc
Beta tester
Beta tester
 
Posts: 1490
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:44 am
Location: Californialand, USA
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 249 times

Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby shawndoc » Sun Oct 14, 2012 6:44 pm

I know adding gas station landmarks won't affect the gas station/price search, but I don't think it would conflict or cause any problems, with the added benefit of suppressing traffic errors.

Plus the landmarks are small enough they won't show up on the client.
California, USA - OC/LA/SB/Riverside L5 Country Editor
shawndoc
Beta tester
Beta tester
 
Posts: 1490
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:44 am
Location: Californialand, USA
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 249 times

Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby shawndoc » Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:13 am

One of the local users has used the Road to River script to turn all the local train routes into landmarks on the map. I figured this script/use of landmarks should be discussed in this thread and included on the Wiki page whenever it actually gets made.
California, USA - OC/LA/SB/Riverside L5 Country Editor
shawndoc
Beta tester
Beta tester
 
Posts: 1490
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:44 am
Location: Californialand, USA
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 249 times

Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby shawndoc » Fri Nov 01, 2013 10:03 pm

Timbones wrote:[Edit: isn't there a separate thread about landmarks in the US forum?]

via mobile


Yes, there are two US specific Landmark threads in the US Local forum.
California, USA - OC/LA/SB/Riverside L5 Country Editor
shawndoc
Beta tester
Beta tester
 
Posts: 1490
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:44 am
Location: Californialand, USA
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 249 times

Re: Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby skbun » Sat Jan 12, 2013 3:10 am

AndyPoms wrote:The water layer already contains names and they display in the client. Waze is also currently working on the water layer (starting with the coast lines) and we don't want to interfere with that work. The national language will reflect that and leave the door open to reevaluate once Waze completes this work.


Just for the record, the water itself shows in the client, but names don't unless editors added water objects. Have a look yourself. They DO show in Livemap, but I've never seen anything suggesting they are the 'same layer'. Are we sure about this?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Image

AM in SW Shasta, NW Tehama, Central Trinity Counties, CA; Mt Rainier Nat'l Park, WA
skbun
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 12:27 am
Location: Seattle/Tacoma WA
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 45 times

Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby skbun » Sat Jan 12, 2013 8:59 am

AndyPoms wrote: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.


If I had to guess, I'd say that Waze's water data came from the dataset you can see at http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/nhd.html?p=nhd .

We can see two different generated static vector images generated from this data on the Livemap and on the client...

I'd guess that the one on the Livemap got slightly higher granularity when generated, say...to make sure that water objects that are 75x75ft or larger show up on the map, in general - and it has names associated with the objects that are exactly the same as they appear in the NHD data. (E.g. 'Lk Fenwick' at http://www.waze.com/livemap/?zoom=15&la ... yers=BTTTT ). The one in the Waze client is slightly LESS granular...its accuracy is to objects about 100x100ft, and to the best of my knowledge, those names were NOT imported or if they were, they're not visible. Stuff that's smaller overall, like small rivers or creeks, don't show up at all by either standard even though they are present and named in the NHD.

So I guess with respect to water layers I would have two questions for the folks generating the water tiles:

1. Can we expect that the granularity will remain the same in the future - so if we want say, creeks that we can't see in the client or Livemap today, that we SHOULD add them?
2. We can't see names of objects on the water layer in the client, imported as-is from NHD, or otherwise. Should we be expecting to but can't? (The whole reason I was adding larger bodies of water in WME was for better shoreline accuracy, and so a name of a water body DID show up as one travels.)
Image

AM in SW Shasta, NW Tehama, Central Trinity Counties, CA; Mt Rainier Nat'l Park, WA
skbun
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 12:27 am
Location: Seattle/Tacoma WA
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 45 times

Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby sketch » Tue Oct 29, 2013 3:52 pm

DG567 wrote:I think there is very little need for landmarks. Waze is good at finding locations and the hideous name labels that can be seen floating on the horizon as one is driving around is, IMO, ugly, distracting, unprofessional and are not standardised.

There are plenty good uses for landmarks—generally for large and/or important things, like parks, schools, shopping malls, and government buildings; things people regularly use for navigation. ("It's on Veterans Highway, right across from Lakeside Mall." or "Turn right past the high school and go three blocks.") Things that are not included are things that are best served only by POIs, like Best Buy or Buffalo Wild Wings.

"Not standardized" is not a good reason to get rid of all landmarks. It's a good reason to standardize landmarks. Which is exactly what we're trying to do here.
iphone 5 • ios 7.1 • waze 3.7.9.914 • mac os 10.9.2
new orleans based • detroit enthusiast • usa country manager
2013 ford focus titanium hatchback 5mt • performance blue
Image Image
sketch
Global Champ Mentor
Global Champ Mentor
 
Posts: 3545
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA
Has thanked: 463 times
Been thanked: 550 times

Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby sketch » Tue Oct 29, 2013 7:13 pm

DG567 wrote:I disagree. Waze is a GPS guided system. It does not tell you to turn after a particular landmark.
I don't believe we'll ever reach a consensus on standardisation. The wiki clearly tells us not to landmark businesses, yet editors in the UK map virtually every large, out of town supermarket.....

Many editors already have reached a consensus on standardization, at least in the US. Editors who either don't read or don't follow the rules, landmarking every business they see, are not a reason to landmark nothing at all.

Look on any other GPS guided system and you will see parks and monuments marked on the map.
iphone 5 • ios 7.1 • waze 3.7.9.914 • mac os 10.9.2
new orleans based • detroit enthusiast • usa country manager
2013 ford focus titanium hatchback 5mt • performance blue
Image Image
sketch
Global Champ Mentor
Global Champ Mentor
 
Posts: 3545
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA
Has thanked: 463 times
Been thanked: 550 times

Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby Timbones » Wed Sep 05, 2012 8:55 am

Here's what we wrote for the UK Guidelines: http://www.waze.com/wiki/index.php/How_ ... Kingdom%29

Basically covers special landmarks (junctions, parking lots, etc) and pretty landmarks (blue, green, etc). We generally recommend that POIs are not added for businesses, as other providers are far more capable of providing that service.
Timbones(6) • UK Country Admin & Coordinator • Forum Moderator • Beta Editor and Routing Expert
Scripts: WME Colour Highlights v1.8 (Feb 2014)WME Route Tester
Timbones
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 3689
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 10:33 am
Location: York, UK
Has thanked: 182 times
Been thanked: 631 times

PreviousNext

Return to Wiki Updates and Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users