[new page] - Water features - Area Places

[vectorspace]

A few Champs were talking about the water layer and water Area Places. Kent suggested we bring the discussion here for all to comment upon.

It seems there is different experiences around the country and different guidance that exists regionally or on a state-by-state basis. Some think no water landmarks (Area Places) should be entered and all existing ones should be deleted. Others think that there is room to add more water features, particularly where they do not exist in the water layer.

Let's start a discussion that may lead to expansion of the Area Places Wiki on water features, or perhaps a whole new page if such detail is needed.

What do you think?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[vectorspace]

In response to Kent... with many water features, we have a huge blob upon which there can be many destinations. I think, as CBenson and DwarfLord mentioned, that Water Area Places for display (on the Client and Live Map, are a different issue than destinations.

I would rather see Point Places put in around water features for destinations because this could accommodate those things already in the Water Layer and those added by Area Places showing the water feature. Of course, there may be variances on such a suggestion.

I think there is one clear rule #1. If it is in the Water Layer already, don't map it. Can anyone refute or argue against such a rule? I can't think of a reason.

In the Wiki we can provide instruction on how to find out -- by looking in the client or looking on Live Map. We can also try to list those things generally available in the water layer and those things that are not usually there.

I think another general rule #2 would be to add water features that provide a visual reference and navigational aid to the map for the client or Live Map. This is consistent with Waze wanting more content. Place the Area Place destination point at a logical location, and if none exists, leave it in the middle.

A general rule #3 would be to add Point Place destinations related to the water feature, particularly if large, at the specific destination points. This might be a portage location, a dock, a place to launch boats, ferry location, etc.

A general rule #4 would be that it is acceptable to add water Point Places for dry channels, those that fill up with water during rains or floods, because they are navigational references. Some of these locations should not be mapped as water when they have dual use. For instance, in New Mexico, where we have little water, we must have flood control areas, basins, that will catch and retain water to avoid damage and also hold the water so it will seep into the ground. These basins are often the locations of parks for a dual use of the space within the city. Do not mark all of this basin space as water, only the parts that are really used all the time for water. Hope that makes sense. There are a lot of this type of thing in the southwest including big cities like Los Angeles.

I will try to think of other draft rules...

[sketch]

I think there is one clear rule #1. If it is in the Water Layer already, don't map it. Can anyone refute or argue against such a rule? I can't think of a reason.

Perhaps only in places where it might be particularly important to see the name of the body of water on the map, I don't know. I kind of like seeing the names of lakes and rivers on the map.

[vectorspace]

I think there is one clear rule #1. If it is in the Water Layer already, don't map it. Can anyone refute or argue against such a rule? I can't think of a reason.

Perhaps only in places where it might be particularly important to see the name of the body of water on the map, I don't know. I kind of like seeing the names of lakes and rivers on the map.

Good idea... putting the name down when it does not show is a great reason to do this.

[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

[vectorspace]

Fallibility of the Waze water layer is a good argument for editors to add such things. The absence of water features and lack of names have already been mentioned in this thread. There's not much we can do about items that should be moved from the water layer... other than mention it to Waze staff.

It seems we have enough to make a draft modification to the Wiki, which we could prototype here. I can take a stab at it unless someone else is interested (please).

[PesachZ]

It was mentioned in a different thread (3.8 feedback) that the water layer is only on the NA server. Can anyone confirm or deny that?
If it's true then that should be mentioned on the page.