I am in favor of moving forward with implementation in the NWR

I can see the value in this. It's a good, viable workaround until Waze integrates proper labeling within the app for exits, if/when they ever plan to do that (presumably soon­­™), to help orient drivers.

In Idaho, I would not see much value in adding nuance to whether/not to map interchanges. I'd probably just map them all if this takes off. However, I would think Washington and Oregon may have pretty complicated interchanges where adding something else could possibly be seen as clutter. I wouldn't think the remaining states would have that issue but I don't know.

Something else to consider is whether this discussion should expand into expressways and/or US Highways with freeway-style interchanges and not just freeway/interstates as well.

I agree on the aforementioned standards of the street being the interstate name, category of Junction/Interchange, and locks matching the Freeway road type locking standard.

On standard/simple interchanges, it would be my preference that the place area only contain the inside of the interchange, not the ramps themselves. This would minimize mistakenly clicking the place instead of the ramp segment. However, more complex interchanges would probably need to be fully enclosed, or at least all but the most outer ramps.

Those are the thoughts I have at the moment. Looking forward to hearing others' thoughts.

FzNk wrote:As for locking, I think it would be fine to have them at the normal minimum lock level. They aren't critical for routing like the freeways they cover so an accidental edit or deletion wouldn't be a big deal.

I believe the locking standard should be higher for these places because they would be seen by many users and many tourists through our region. While it is true that it would not affect routing (provided the user doesn't search for a specific exit as their destination), it still has higher exposure than an ordinary place, so I believe a higher lock is appropriate. Furthermore, unlike segments, place locks don't prevent lower editors from making suggestions (PUR) if they believe an edit is needed.

EDIT: added quotation for context

TheChrisK wrote:Do you think they should be minimum of L4 or L5?

For simplicity, I think the verbiage of matching the lock of the nearby freeway segments is good. By not hard-coding a specific rank in the wiki text, we allow discretion where appropriate and we give ourselves one less place to fix the wiki if the locking standard changes.

HBiede wrote:If the goal was to lower to L4, we could change the wording to “match the lock level of the included ramp segments”

The NWR locking standard has both freeway and ramps at L5.

SkyviewGuru wrote:I believe the locking standard should be higher for these places because they would be seen by many users and many tourists through our region. While it is true that it would not affect routing (provided the user doesn't search for a specific exit as their destination), it still has higher exposure than an ordinary place, so I believe a higher lock is appropriate. Furthermore, unlike segments, place locks don't prevent lower editors from making suggestions (PUR) if they believe an edit is needed.

Do you think they should be minimum of L4 or L5? I wouldn't be opposed to locking them at 5 since places can be still be edited by lower ranks and approved. That's what we have the Unlocks/Approvals channel for in Discord.

I'm late to the discussion but as Herrchin said, they are very useful for the motorist to see what exit is coming up, sometimes before a sign passes by. I had started mapping these in Wyoming a few years ago but they seem to have disappeared.

I look forward to this discussion and am in full support if implementing Exit Area Places.

Good work on this HBiede. Thank you all for the comments and feedback.