[new page] - Water features - Area Places

[CBenson]

I think the issues of what the guidance should be for water Area Places and what to do with the entered water Area Places are different questions.

On the first issue, I'm ambivalent regarding Places that are for display rather than routing destinations.

On the second issue, I remain firmly opposed to deleting anything from the map without attempting to contact the editors that added them. I know a couple of very disillusioned potential editors in my area that spent tons of time adding detailed shorelines for bodies of water only to have their work disappear with no notice. Although, I agree that their work wasn't particularly helpful, reaching out to them to discuss the issue before deletion would have made a big difference.

[CBenson]

I'd say: "Do not delete water Area Place features without first trying to contact the editor that created that feature." Just to cover the case when the creator is no longer around.

[CBenson]

Seems that it would be a good idea to publish vectorspaces proposal in the wiki if only to get the following statement published:

Many water features (lakes, rivers, etc.) are displayed on the Waze client to help spacial recognition of areas when navigating. They are displayed in a Map Water Layer that is not accessible by the Waze editing community and can take significant time to get updated by Waze staff.

[DwarfLord]

Editor-added water features can bring useful context to neighboring roads, for example a river that divides the roads on one side of a valley from those on the other. Context like that aids both editors and users. In my area much of the San Lorenzo River is an editor-added water feature and I have felt thankful many times to see where it is relative to the road network, both in the editor and in the client.

[DwarfLord]

The Waze water layer is not infallible either....an argument could be made that rather than let Waze handle it, Waze should let us handle it.

What brings this to mind is central and western San Francisco, in which a number of subterranean reservoirs are marked in the Waze water layer. In one view I count six water features but four of them are inside bunkers. Only two involve a visible water surface, and of those two one is a user-added feature (Twin Peaks Reservoir). Live Map link here:

https://www.waze.com/livemap?lon=-122.4 ... 82&zoom=15

It's hard for me to see how water completely encapsulated within earth and concrete is usefully represented as a water feature...perhaps Waze will be giving us underground aquifers as well

[DwarfLord]

I requested comments in the new Places thread, but that thread is (rightfully) preoccupied with the recent changes, so I am bringing this discussion here.

After getting one thumbs-up and incorporating one comment in the Places thread, I have modified the Places article with regards to water features as follows:

Use only if water itself is visually obvious to drivers on nearby roads. Do not remap features already present in the built-in Waze water layer unless that layer is incomplete or inaccurate. Map only the typical extent of visible water, not adjacent open space, greenbelt, culvert, meadows, or flood plain. If the river/stream is too narrow to map conveniently with an Area Place, it should not be mapped at all.

and

Use only if water itself is visually obvious to drivers on nearby roads. Do not remap features already present in the built-in Waze water layer unless that layer is incomplete or inaccurate. Map only the typical extent of visible water, not adjacent beaches or land. If the feature is too small to map conveniently with an Area Place, it should not be mapped at all.

These additions are live now. Comments welcome.

[DwarfLord]

Still not crazy about the "visually obvious" language, exactly. A river that goes under a road, even if it's not visually obvious (i.e., you'd have to intend to look down into a gulch or whatever to see the water), is still worth mapping. You might wonder what that bridge is for.

The problem is that the river/stream feature, implemented as it is using the Area Place, is way easy to overdo. And it shows up on the map with high contrast. So an editor who isn't painstaking will end up creating a Mississippi that every driver within miles will see on their display, when all that's there is a creekbed with a few puddles in it. That's the pitfall the guidance is intended to prevent.

(Yes, this just happened in my area, which is why I got the bit in my teeth! The editor added a tiny creek that hardly anybody ever sees but on the map it shows as one of the biggest rivers in the greater Bay Area. It's just really hard to map tiny creeks with an Area Place.)

If Waze allowed us to map streams with a non-drivable road line, I'd support mapping stream features even where no water is visible to drivers. But doing so with an Area Place is too awkward and risky unless water itself is "visually obvious".

With Sea/Lake/Pond it is (I hope) less controversial that water should be visually obvious to drivers on nearby roads for there to be a bright blue water feature on the map...?

If this is not persuasive, I'd be happy to see alternative language that could prevent the disaster I mentioned above...!

[DwarfLord]

Interesting! I'll investigate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JimmyK1]

I'm sure this info is hidden somewhere but I seem to be unable to locate it so please excuse the OT.

I've been reading about Waze's water layer left and right and although in principle I understand what it is, I can't seem to find all the details.
Being in a country that has approx 20% of the European coastline I'm fairly interested on this matter so any pointers or info would be appreciated.

[kentsmith9]

I would only recommend adding a water feature if it does not already appear in the client. Since we cannot see that layer in the editor, we may need to help editors realize this difference.

Having said that, do we need to create water Places as destinations like we have Parks today? I am thinking of major recreational lakes. I don't think the driver cares if the places entry is a lake or park, so maybe just having "Lake Isabelle" (as a park entry) is enough.