Switch to full style
Post a reply

Place Standards

Sat Jan 31, 2015 10:38 pm

After doing a couple of MapRaids, I like the format they are using for places. Namely:

1. locking EVERYTHING at level 3, save for airports at level 5
2. Phone format (###) ###-####
3. must have HN, street
4. fill in as much info as possible, i.e. website, hours, other info.

Discuss-

[ img ]

Re: Place Standards

Sun Feb 01, 2015 4:11 am

Was everything level 3? I thought some raids started it lower for ordinary POI's. I could check, though.

Ideally, yes, as much info as possible is good. I gotta admit that after the street addy, phone and website, I'm kinda whipped, so I don't usually get to the hours. Sometimes, though!

One more thing about the Raid experience, especially in L.A.: They've come up with a good Place name harmonization list. I've been using it to standardize a lot of the chain-store names/categories:

Scroll to the bottom for the list:

https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/California/Places

Re: Place Standards

Mon Feb 02, 2015 9:07 pm

Just to add: The down side of locking Places too high is that pretty soon there will be nothing new editors can do. I'm thinking for ordinary Point places they should be only a 2 so that a new editor who is at least serious enough to get to that rank can have something to work on. Of course, higher-value places can be locked higher.

We do need new AMs taking at least a region on an island -- ESPECIALLY on the neighbor islands. I don't think we should make everything too inaccessible and discouraging.

Re: Place Standards

Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:05 pm

The reason the lock level was set to 3 is so IGN editors are not able to make changes without approval of upper level editors.


Machete808 wrote:Was everything level 3? I thought some raids started it lower for ordinary POI's. I could check, though.


Having been on the PUR team for Houston and Ottawa/Montreal, I can confirm that lock level is 3 for all but Airports (5). I have continued those standards in Hawaii on places I've worked on.
Last edited by KuniaKid on Wed Feb 04, 2015 2:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Place Standards

Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:11 pm

Well, that's a good point. I've seen some obnoxiously AWFUL things approved by IGN editors. Although, I've never seen Waze send one of the hired guns to muck with any Places that are already approved and locked. Have they? Thought they were only on PUR detail.

Maybe rank 3 is OK. Gawd, I've been locking them at 2. A LOT of them.

Re: Place Standards

Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:27 am

Machete808 wrote:Well, that's a good point. I've seen some obnoxiously AWFUL things approved by IGN editors. Although, I've never seen Waze send one of the hired guns to muck with any Places that are already approved and locked. Have they? Thought they were only on PUR detail.

Maybe rank 3 is OK. Gawd, I've been locking them at 2. A LOT of them.


I don't think that IGN editors deal too much with your average place, per se. I think I came across one or two places that were IGN approved (or at least last touched). But I did want to have this discussion.

Re: Place Standards

Wed Apr 22, 2015 6:38 am

I think at minimum we should have the address, phone, hours and website if applicable then we can set it at 3. If lower rank needs to address issues they can send a UR :)
Post a reply