New "L" in Las Vegas just appeared yesterday due to this segment being misnamed. Not yet on the client map. I've renamed the segment but of course the L is still there.

https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=9&lon ... s=71876339

Hopefully this will disappear if/when Waze runs their script. Hopefully they run it often.

Do we have an update on the El Cerrito (2) issue? It's still on the map, and most of the segments in that area have both El Cerrito (2) and Corona as the city name. Will changing the city names on all those segments help that process along?

Thanks!

I will look into this and help out.

Thanks

dbwiddis wrote: On an unrelated note: there are 187 segments and a city shape near the city of Corona, CA labeled "El Cerrito (2)". The incorporated city of El Cerrito, CA is in the San Francisco Bay area. These segments are in an unincoporated El Cerrito Census Designated Place. I think a more descriptive name than a (2) suffix would be appropriate here, such as El Cerrito CDP. https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=0&lon ... 1991256862

FYI, the link took me to the incorrect location - the location is - https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=3&lon ... ts=6395059
So, I suggest that we just change the city name to blank. I know that other areas of the country is having discussion about CDP vs towns vs zip names... I know that when I ask other people, they do not know what CDP stands for, so why add more confusion. If it is agreed, then I will ask that this city (El Cerrito (2)) be removed which I prefer, but we could change them all to Corona.

For all the other items in this tread, I have sent a note to ask for the status/update on.

Thanks

There is a form to fill out to ask for El Cerrito (2) to be merged with Corona. Once that is filled out I will go in and endorse it and then they will do the merge...

REPOSTED AS A SEPARATE THREAD:

Thanks for starting this thread. I'm going to assume this is the regional place to post problems.

Here are mine. I tried to use the strategy for creating a single segment with the erroneous name and then move it -- some of them have been moved off to the side but all are still too visible -- they didn't "collapse" in size. Some are visible only at certain zoom levels, so I hope whoever looks at these zooms in and out.

1. In Kailua, Oahu, the smudge is: "TEST-do not delete"
https://www.waze.com/editor/?lon=-157.6 ... TTTTTTTTFT

(Embarrassed to say that I created this one by screwing up the move-to-the-side strategy, put the offending text in the City blank instead of the Street name field. It's off to the side, but still embarrassing.)

2. Nearby, at Marine Corps Base Hawaii, the smudge is: "Kaneohe Station"
https://www.waze.com/editor/?lon=-157.7 ... TTTTTTTTFT

(This appears to be the only zoom level where this obsolete name for the installation appears.)

3. Offshore from Wainiha, Kauai, the smudge is: "Wain"
https://www.waze.com/editor/?lon=-159.5 ... s=71822137

(This appears at every zoom level, but progressively smaller.)

4. Across the island in Waimea Kauai (a better city name to distinguish it from another Waimea) — the smudge is: "Waimea (2)"

https://www.waze.com/editor/?lon=-159.6 ... TTTTTTTTFT

(This appears at each zoom level in closer from here, but not further out.)

Thanks for any help or further direction.

dbwiddis wrote:On an unrelated note: there are 187 segments and a city shape near the city of Corona, CA labeled "El Cerrito (2)". The incorporated city of El Cerrito, CA is in the San Francisco Bay area. These segments are in an unincoporated El Cerrito Census Designated Place. I think a more descriptive name than a (2) suffix would be appropriate here, such as El Cerrito CDP. https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=0&lon ... 1991256862

jemay wrote:So, I suggest that we just change the city name to blank. I know that other areas of the country is having discussion about CDP vs towns vs zip names... I know that when I ask other people, they do not know what CDP stands for, so why add more confusion. If it is agreed, then I will ask that this city (El Cerrito (2)) be removed which I prefer, but we could change them all to Corona.

hazelb123 wrote:Do we have an update on the El Cerrito (2) issue? It's still on the map, and most of the segments in that area have both El Cerrito (2) and Corona as the city name. Will changing the city names on all those segments help that process along?

I meant to reply to this subtopic last year, but other things on the map swallowed my time...

Late in 2012, I saw several URs along I-15 where the reporter was complaining that "El Cerrito (2) didn't exist, and that the area was just part of Corona. First, I investigated the extent of it on the map, and found that there were a lot of El Cerrito (2) segments actually inside of Corona proper. I then tried to determine the validity of El Cerrito in that area. Clearly, it is a local community term, because many businesses, and even a street, are named after it. At the time, I was making regular trips north and south on the 15 for business purposes, so I decided to hop off the highway there one day and poll some locals. People seemed interested in what I was doing, and I got a variety of responses, but the general agreement was that they all knew the area was called El Cerrito, BUT they all had Corona postal addresses, and if any of them were to tell a friend where they lived or worked, for purposes of navigation, they would give Corona as the city. I took this a step further, by looking up local businesses on the web, and seeing how they gave their addresses. Again, Corona was the clear winner. El Cerrito Middle School, on El Cerrito Rd, uses Corona in its address.

Thinking that all of this research clinched it, I set about eradicating the smudge, and changed every one of the existing El Cerrito (2) segments to Corona. I waited a month to see if the smudge would clear. It didn't, but I heard rumors of Waze running the cleanup scripts, so I waited another month. When I returned the second time to see if it had been fixed, almost all of the segments I had modified were set back to El Cerrito (2) by a Waze staffer, including some which were clearly outside the bounds of the El Cerrito CDP. At this point, I intended to bring up the issue on the forums here, but there were other, more pressing problems to tackle.

My conclusion, after all of this, is that the City/Alt City segments in that area should be the reverse of how they are now. Corona should be the City, and El Cerrito should be the alternate. That way, there would be no El Cerrito polygon, and no confusing El Cerrito (2) hovering on the map, but search queries for addresses in the area using El Cerrito instead of Corona would still yield proper results. Is my thinking correct on this? I may have missed some recent discussion or updates on smudge issues...

I would appreciate the effort, but I think we should do it the official way, via the form, as my previous efforts were undone by staff, for whatever reason, I don't know. I should have gotten around to submitting the request ages ago... Do you want to try that?

ottonomy wrote:My conclusion, after all of this, is that the City/Alt City segments in that area should be the reverse of how they are now. Corona should be the City, and El Cerrito should be the alternate. That way, there would be no El Cerrito polygon, and no confusing El Cerrito (2) hovering on the map, but search queries for addresses in the area using El Cerrito instead of Corona would still yield proper results. Is my thinking correct on this? I may have missed some recent discussion or updates on smudge issues...

Bump on this old topic.

If you would like this to be done, I'm willing to do it manually.
I went through the area a couple of weeks ago "cleaning up" some streets that crossed from the CDP to Corona and the opposite, so what is now named "El Cerrito (2)" is 100% defined within the CDP, but I also made sure that all segments had Corona as an alternate.

I can either flip the city and Alt, or simply make it all Corona with no Alt, whatever you would prefer.