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..
Timbones wrote:[Edit: isn't there a separate thread about landmarks in the US forum?]
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.
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.
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.
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.....
Users browsing this forum: bart99gt