Current guidance doesn't rule out Point Places for any named parking that doesn't qualify for an Area Place. Is the desire to change that so that more parking can be marked with Areas?

If we add an exception so that some private, dedicated parking places are OK as Area Places (but not others?), it will make the fundamental "general purpose for the general public" principles harder to express and defend. Exceptions weaken principles, and the more exceptions the weaker the principle. But maybe there would be a way to capture and articulate it so it isn't an exception.

I believe Alan referred some weeks ago to pending functionality that would involve parking. This may all be moot. Perhaps the discussion should wait...

PesachZ wrote:Can generate consensus to set
police, fire, hospital to areas,
Add stand alone ER as an area,
ER on a hospital property already marked as an area should be a point.
Clinics, doctors offices, etc, point

Sounds entirely correct & appropriate to me, and I'm pretty conservative when it comes to Area Places.

sketch wrote:The only place I can think of where I'd rather it be reversed is airports – "MSY - Departures" and "DTW - North Terminal - Arrivals" and so forth. Because we know the code will be only 3 letters long, and we want to be able to search "MSY" and get all the options.

Exactly my sentiments as well. To the extent I've been doing airports that's been my approach.

sketch wrote:Name the airport using the airport's name followed by its 3-letter IATA code, set off in parentheses, e.g., "Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport (MSY)".

I definitely agree that the IATA code should be part of the name. As far as where to put it, my own preference is to place the IATA code first, with no dashes or parenthesis. For example, "SFO San Francisco International Airport". Point places would be named similarly, "SFO Domestic Arrivals" etc. This convention would offer a nice and clean-looking list of all SFO-related destinations in any alphabetically-ordered presentation returned from a search for "SFO".

sketch wrote:If a three-letter IATA code is not available, use, in this order of preference: (1) the FAA code, if in the US, or (2) the four-letter ICAO code, everywhere the IATA code is called for.

Should we not follow the convention already agreed upon for naming runways? That convention uses IATA first, ICAO second, and only then the domestic authority's code (the FAA code in the US).

While we have the Places wiki on the operating table, I would like to suggest that "offices" should be Points, at least for now.

I've experimented with the idea that big office areas can be Area Places. The Apple campus shows up in Live Map with a font only slightly smaller than that used for "Cupertino". Another editor has added a gigantic Area Place named "Apple Inc. - New Campus" that is bigger than many shopping malls. Not too far away is a big blotch labeled NVIDIA.

I have tried very hard to see these as a positive, but am not succeeding. Why the heck do I want to see the entire NVIDIA property on the map whether I want to go there or not? And if I did want to go there, a Point Place would do it fine. As far as the Apple campus goes, while it's cool and all, many buildings on the parts of that campus you might drive through by accident do not look any different from the rest of Silicon Valley except for a little sign out front with an outline of an apple on it.

To me it seems like the primary benefit of marking offices with Area Places is coolness that quickly wears off. They are not common public destinations, they are not open to the public, and unless the buildings themselves really stand out from their surroundings somehow, they don't help orient the driver enough to warrant the Area Place.

So I'd be very grateful if we could agree to change "Offices" to be Point Places, not "size dependent".

I for one agree 100% with PesachZ's proposal, including treating those medical offices not offering urgent care the same as generic offices when deciding Area vs. Point.

Unfortunately it remains unclear how to deal with generic offices. The current wiki simply says "size dependent". Size alone is a poor criterion for choosing Area vs Point. Just like a Farm Area Place would be meaningless amidst a sea of other Farm Area Places, an Office Area Place is meaningless amidst a sea of other Office Area Places. Doesn't matter how big. It may be fun to put in an Area Place for Fubar Inc., but when other editors follow the example and create Area Places for all the nearby offices -- Snafu Ltd, Pia Partners, and Bohica LLP -- well, that's not a map I want to see nor one I think I'd find useful.

If we had a fixed road map for Area Places and knew exactly how various things would be rendered in the future, the discussion could be quite different! But right now, shaded polygons.

So I would say generic, non-emergency offices warrant an Area Place only if in a visually significant structure that stands out from its surroundings.

(Edit: this is a modification of my previous proposal of just making all offices Points. I would still prefer that proposal, but I modified it because I am starting to think it would never fly...there seems to be desire out there to add more area places.)

My understanding of the runway naming protocol is that we go to ICAO only if there is no IATA code at all. It may be that if we went to another 3-letter code in such (very very rare) cases that could be confusing...?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quick question about a point of confusion in the Places wiki page. Note: I've search this thread and saw no specific discussion on this topic.

In this image https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/File:Wme_pla ... points.png , it is implied that shopping center "area place" covers only the building footprint.

However, later in the Places wiki page, it says (in regards to parking lots in shopping malls) "If an entire complex warrants an Area Place, any associated parking may be included within its boundaries; for example, a Shopping Mall Area Place with dedicated parking could include all stores and parking associated with the mall." That would imply that the Area Place covers not only the building footprint, but the parking lots as well. My understanding of the direction I've been given is to place areas out to the "fence line" and not to use building footprints, which, implicitly would include parking for almost all shopping malls and centers in the U.S.

So, which is right? Both? If building footprint should not be used, why do we have an image that shows it?

Regards, Eric.

I am ok with it, Alan. Except for a few ones:

Car Services Gas Stations Point
Shopping Supermarket More area than point, but the option "Both" is fine to me.
Natural farms Area (these are considered Areas here)

sketch wrote:"Typically, if the Place is inside a building, the marker should be located at or near the location's front door."

What happens when said building houses more than one store/office space?

Example: Large shopping mall, multi-story office building that houses private practice offices, coorporate sites, satellite company offices (MCSO)?
https://www.waze.com/editor/?lon=-112.0 ... 26&env=usa