In the section on Pedestrian Boardwalks
https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Road_types/U ... Boardwalks
I suggest a photo something like this:
http://i.imgur.com/Q4OwSFc.png

Because this is a clear example of a road for pedestrians that is potentially important to wazers in their cars -- it crosses the road.

The type of lovely pedestrian area currently shown on the page may or may not have any relevence to wazers in their cars. It is impossible to tell from the photo whether it is even visible from any road wazers should be driving on.

Would it be OK to entirely remove the image from the section
https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Road_types/U ... ing_Trails

I feel it is confusing, as it presents the idea that things that look like a walking/biking trail are actually meant to have something to do with walking trails, which is very nearly the OPPOSITE of the idea we want to get across in this section.

I saw similar behavior in conshohocken from a trail parallel to a road, before we added plrs to protect the destination, and then I finally changed the trail to a PB.

If it is worthwhile, I would be happy to bring the WT back briefly and choose an appropriate destination point to see if I can still get the undesirable behavior.

The route ended several blocks away from the destination

viewtopic.php?f=215&t=127799&hilit=Trail

Be that as it may, I don't think "Waze Team recommended max length of segment" belongs in "walking trails". It applies to all road types.

It would seem to be global information.

In terms of technical reference, where is the logical place to call home for this information (which might be subject to change)?
In terms of instructional materials and best-practice guides, how many pages ought to link to this information?

Thanks for that link. I don't know why I failed to find it by searching.
It contains technical information and perhaps should be linked from the technical reference as well as from this page.

That page contains an error, I think, but that is a separate issue for another thread.

That would be nice. Off to build something...

This is the same kind of strange behavior I've seen with disconnected (various degrees of high transition penalty as well as no junction whatsoever) drivable roads. So it sounds as though walking trail has not changed its stripes recently.

I sometimes use imgur to embed images.

The "preventing traffic pollution" exception is probably covered well enough.
Here's a case where a trail is paved, is almost as wide as some of the sidestreets, has a crosswalk to carry it across the road, and the travel speed is slow enough that waze is zoomed right in. So "landmark" might make sense here.

https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... =500481889

Is there consensus among the champs to revert the recent change to WT behavior? In Benelux, for example, WT is used merely to represent walking, hiking, etc trails.

This recent change might seem like a partial improvement there -- a bug that is finally partially fixed.

The "access path" is a useful concept.


the recent change has broken many useful things in the US while partially fixing many other things. Changing it back will fix the broken things in the us, while breaking some things again.

I have done some testing on PBs a few weeks back. And my conclusions were the same as yours for WTs. Except that there was no routing in any examined case. The routing always started on a connected drivable. I experienced the same difficulties with disconnected regular PBs.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk