Which is changing. Read Alan's post above. We're discussing updating the Wiki to standards that actually work. Lets not use outdated existing Wiki thinking in our discussion.AndyPoms wrote:sketch wrote:The point is that we're making a clear set of rules, rather than allowing each editor to make their own. And drive-thrus are mapped, just not as private roads, so they're not under the ambit of our discussion.
Drive-thrus fall under the "Small Parking Lots" clause and are NOT mapped.
Riamus wrote:Regarding drive-thrus, my opinion is simply that 1) mapping them prevents problems, and 2) you should worry more about fixing problems than worrying about whether or not you think it's too cluttered, and 3) unless auto-zoom is disabled, you aren't going to even see the parking lot roads if you're at about 25-30 mph unless you are navigating and a turn is coming up. If you're in a very slow part of a city, you may see them more often, but you'll also be going so slowly that you still won't see that many on the screen at the same time. If you're going fast enough to matter, then they won't be showing up anyhow. Yes, we want them made less visible. I've suggested using just a centerline for them. But as long as mapping one prevents problems - bad speed data and avoiding map problems - then I think it's a good idea to map them. Just keep pushing hard for changing the display of those roads. For that matter, we already can change color schemes... get Waze to put the width of roads into the configuration as well instead of being hard coded. Then everyone can have what they want for the display.
JJLatWayz wrote:I'm not disputing that. If 5 meters is ridiculously low, then it should be easy to get unanimous consensus to create an actual rule. If everyone agrees "10 meters" regardless of the number of addresses should never be mapped, great. I don't think I've been around long enough to cast a vote, but I have done enough editing and driving and using competing sat/nav to offer an opinion.
By the way, when I said "5 meters", I was thinking of physical distance, not virtual. The length of your driveway is the length from the edge of the street or public right-of-way, not the length from the center line of the road. So a literal 5 meter driveway, like my own, can not hold 2 cars parked end-to-end. At 5 meters, there is no room for confusion. If you've reached the closest spot on my street to my house, you could not possibly be confused about how to get to the right house. Having my driveway on the map can NOT benefit any aspect of Waze and NOT have my driveway would not harm Waze. It would indeed be ridiculous and I think everyone would agree. Even with multiple addresses off a 5 meter driveway, getting lost in the car is virtually impossible.
kentsmith9 wrote:russblau wrote:Well, I can tell you for a fact that at least in some places (Sussex Co DE) there are some private roads that have a name and at least one address assigned to them, but they sometimes have no visible sign and look like a driveway.
I think we all agree there are exceptions to every rule. If the city recognizes the name on a road and other maps recognize the name on the road, then I say we name it. Our point was if someone decided to name their driveway "Joe Rd", that is not a recognized name and we should not map the name.
Riamus wrote:Really? Ok, then... as long as it's an official sign regardless of color. I've only ever seen official street signs that are green, but whatever is official is what I meant; not those signs you can buy at a store.
AlanOfTheBerg wrote:The discussion then rather turns around where @sketch and @kentsmith9 appear to go back on the previous advice and advocate for naming private roads, after which I chime in again about private roads and parking lots. If we follow the latest advice from sketch and kent, then we'd be naming every parking lot road too, something I completely disagree with.
Having the (current) correct stop-point for an address be on the private (unnamed) road or parking lot segment is not reason enough to start naming all of them. This goes against what we've been asked by Ehud: not to kludge the map. We do still need to, but when it comes to this, I see no point. Waze doesn't use internal addresses and stop-points now, and likely won't for quite some time. As has been mentioned on the addressing topic several times in other threads, Waze has to make the stop point more flexible first. Otherwise, their stop-point routing will fail to get people to the right locations.
AlanOfTheBerg wrote:sketch wrote:I disagree. If "Bollinger Crossing" is the name of the mall, and it's on a sign that looks like a street sign, the street should be named.
No, because it will say that also when navigating you out of the mall and that makes no sense. It certainly would be more confusing to be told to turn right and left four time at the "name of the mall" rather than the street name you are heading towards. What we need to have Waze do, rather than kludge the map, is nav instructions need to say "towards" instead of "at." And his has been discussed a lot before.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]