Road Types (USA) – Airports and Surrounding Area

Moderator: Unholy

Re: Road Types (USA) – Airports and Surrounding Area

Postby AlanOfTheBerg » Wed Apr 23, 2014 7:39 pm

Naming standard of "LR" or "RL"? or lower number first always regardless of L or R? How about runways with no L-R?

Also, is there confirmation that runways, like walking trails, definitely DO NOT cause routing problems? Specifically, if a runway is closer to the google search result (because G is still the preferred POI provider) than any other segment, then Waze may try to route as close as it can to that runway.
Wiki Resources: Map Editing Manual | alanoftheberg@gmail.com
Oregon-based US Country Manager | iPhone6 - VZ - iOS 8.2 | Waze v3.9.4
AlanOfTheBerg
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 23304
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 8:48 pm
Location: US Country Manager - Oregon, USA
Has thanked: 1047 times
Been thanked: 4292 times

Re: Road Types (USA) – Airports and Surrounding Area

Postby AlanOfTheBerg » Wed Apr 23, 2014 8:41 pm

pumrum wrote:To supplement this, a non-driveable segment such as a runway should never be connected to the driveable segment network, so the routing engine would not be able to route you onto a runway - even if a landmark/place marker stop point was physically on top of the runway. it will route you to the nearest driveable segment

That's not the problem which some non-driveable segments will cause. It will, with walking trails, for example, see that a walking trail, not connected to any other segment, is closest to the lat/lon of the search result, and then will route you to the spot on the segment closest to that walking trail it can get.

In the quick sketch below, if you assume the Place target is a lat/lon returned by a google result, you would think that the actual destination would be the Parking lot segment because it is the closest reachable/connected segment to the target. But it won't be. The actual destination will be where the green spot is, because the closest segment to the lat/lon is the walking trail, and the closest Waze can route to the walking trail is to where the green spot is.
Attachments
walking_trail_dest.png
walking_trail_dest.png (15.39 KiB) Viewed 1031 times
Wiki Resources: Map Editing Manual | alanoftheberg@gmail.com
Oregon-based US Country Manager | iPhone6 - VZ - iOS 8.2 | Waze v3.9.4
AlanOfTheBerg
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 23304
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 8:48 pm
Location: US Country Manager - Oregon, USA
Has thanked: 1047 times
Been thanked: 4292 times

Re: Road Types (USA) – Airports and Surrounding Area

Postby AlanOfTheBerg » Wed Apr 23, 2014 8:47 pm

sketch wrote:
AlanOfTheBerg wrote:That's not the problem which some non-driveable segments will cause. It will, with walking trails, for example, see that a walking trail, not connected to any other segment, is closest to the lat/lon of the search result, and then will route you to the spot on the segment closest to that walking trail it can get.

Pretty sure that's only true of non-drivables which are currently visible in the client. Walking trails are displayed in the client; runways are not.

Very well could be the case. Just trying to make sure.
Wiki Resources: Map Editing Manual | alanoftheberg@gmail.com
Oregon-based US Country Manager | iPhone6 - VZ - iOS 8.2 | Waze v3.9.4
AlanOfTheBerg
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 23304
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 8:48 pm
Location: US Country Manager - Oregon, USA
Has thanked: 1047 times
Been thanked: 4292 times

Re: Road Types (USA) – Airports and Surrounding Area

Postby Daknife » Fri Apr 18, 2014 6:27 pm

I'm opposed to Runways, everytime someone adds a runway to one of my local airports I start seeing a big increase in GPS tracks matching flight paths. Simply if Waze has it people start using it. You don't need runways with or without proper designations as nobody is driving on them. When Waze adds a flight path option then add them and every minute detail a pilot could want. But until then they have no place in an app for ground transportation. The Airports are already marked with areas.

Just my biased opinion.

Tapatalking via my Galaxy S4
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: 1677
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:03 pm
Location: Riverdale, Utah
Has thanked: 452 times
Been thanked: 225 times

Re: Road Types (USA) – Airports and Surrounding Area

Postby Daknife » Fri Apr 18, 2014 7:24 pm

Areas over the runways/airports take care of the distinctive landmark aspect. Always have.

Tapatalking via my Galaxy S4
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: 1677
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:03 pm
Location: Riverdale, Utah
Has thanked: 452 times
Been thanked: 225 times

Re: Road Types (USA) – Airports and Surrounding Area

Postby Daknife » Sat Apr 19, 2014 12:45 am

Large shaded area labeled airport signifies Airport far more than a straight line road that may or may not have some seemingly random numbers and letters does.

Tapatalking via my Galaxy S4
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: 1677
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:03 pm
Location: Riverdale, Utah
Has thanked: 452 times
Been thanked: 225 times

Re: airport identifiers

Postby dbraughlr » Fri Apr 18, 2014 6:21 pm

pumrum wrote:You mention FAA identifier but then listed an ICAO identifier. I would recommend using the FAA identifier rather than the ICAO identifier for runway markings. I think if you try to standardize on ICAO (KXXX) you will just end up confusing the masses -- most people recognize the FAA identifier. Further, some airfields don't have an ICAO identifier but all airfields have an FAA identifier.

ICAO and FAA identifiers are not necessarily different by the prefix K (there are airports in AK and HI too).
The identifier recognized most is the IATA identifier. How about using the IATA for airports which have have one and FAA identifier for the rest?
Ѭ
dbraughlr
 
Posts: 566
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:24 am
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: runways

Postby dbraughlr » Fri Apr 18, 2014 7:07 pm

sketch wrote:Runways make an airport immediately identifiable as an airport.

Having the airport identifier in the runway name immediately identifies the airport.
dbraughlr
 
Posts: 566
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:24 am
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: runways

Postby dbraughlr » Fri Apr 18, 2014 7:17 pm

daknife wrote:You don't need runways with or without proper designations as nobody is driving on them. When Waze adds a flight path option then add them and every minute detail a pilot could want.


As with walking trails and railroads, I haven't seen a viable solution besides mapping them and locking them. The only way I found to win the war against walking trails was to lock them or disconnect them from the roadway. The same goes for runways, I think. If the runway is mapped and locked, then no one can attach it to a road or pave it during take-off or landing.

This is not for pilots or airport personnel.
Runways are a distinctive landmark. In theory, a safety feature could be built for Waze to warn about proximity to a mapped runway. Runways should be excluded from search results regardless of what they are named.
dbraughlr
 
Posts: 566
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:24 am
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: runways

Postby dbraughlr » Fri Apr 18, 2014 7:27 pm

pumrum wrote:... assumes you would be near an airport, know enough to use it as a reference, but some how not know which one it is and have to look at the IATA identifier just to make sure you're not at the wrong airport ;)


Yes. I'm sure someone can give you examples of airports which are close to each other, although it shouldn't be too hard to find the airport area landmark label within which the runways fall.
And yes, this assumes that runways are shown in the app and are shown with a name when zoomed in.

I have been at places where there was a BGS with an airplane icon. I think, "Yes, but which airport?" because I have been close to an airport but not known which one.

For editing, I like the ID on the runways because I often have the Places layer turned off.
If runways start showing in the app with the names, then how they are named matters a lot more.
dbraughlr
 
Posts: 566
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:24 am
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Next

Return to Wiki Updates and Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users