Sort by
Author
Post time
Subject
Display
All posts
1 day
2 weeks
1 month
3 months
6 months
1 year
Post Reply

Greater Toronto Area PUR MapRaid Discussion

Post by


I have contacted orbitc and we're working out the logistics of getting this MapRaid going. The tentative date for the MapRaid is Jun 24, 2015.

I'm working on dividing up the raid areas based on the municipalities.

Update: Greater Toronto Area MapRaid now consists:

01 - Toronto
02 - Peel
03 - York
04 - Durham
05 - Halton
06 - Hamilton
07 - Waterloo
08 - Niagara
09 - Wellington
10 - Simcoe
11 - Brant
12 - Dufferin
13 - Middlesex
14 - Lambton
15 - Essex

If there is community interest we can include more adjacent regions. Ex: Waterloo, Niagara, Simcoe, Wellington. Please request for these before May 28, 2015.

Many of you who have participated in MapRaids are familiar with joyriding's Place Browser. It is a very powerful tool, that allows us to monitor and maintain all places within a defined area. It was very successful during the Canadian MapRaid: http://w-tools.org/PlaceBrowser?group=MapRaidOttawa

It still functions very well even after the MapRaid.

I believe that editors in this region will benefit from this during the MapRaid but also the long term access to the place browser.

The other reason I'm pushing for a place update MapRaid is so that the Canadian community will become more familiar with our new place rules, which are consistent with global & north american rules.

https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Canada#Place_Naming
Please login to the wiki to see the most recent updates.

We need Canada to have better Place Name Harmonization, and proper use of place and area categories throughout the country.

Similar to the Ottawa MapRaid we will also be giving out rank promotions where necessary to the most active raiders; these promotions will not require the minimum edit count.

________________________________________________

If you have comments/sugggestions regarding the place rules, please express them here as well.

POSTER_ID:16892365

1

Send a message

Re: Greater Toronto Area PUR MapRaid Discussion

Post by doctorkb
We need to revisit that standard for Canada, because I'm VERY opposed to it.

Having iconic big-boxes (eg Costco, Home Depot, Ikea) mapped as area places serve a good purpose for navigation.
doctorkb
Posts: 4385
Answers: 4
Has thanked: 433 times
Been thanked: 1464 times
Send a message

Re: Greater Toronto Area PUR MapRaid Discussion

Post by doctorkb
Good luck getting any action against bad IGN editors.

I've been around these parts for a few years and the nicest thing I can say about them is that they are IGNorant to the editing standards.

For the most part, they were staying out of NA, until the big places update hit. Then that all changed.

As for big boxes, perhaps other areas have higher densities of them, but they're mapped as areas in Edmonton and work well on the client. Their labels are visible if you don't have a route input (and sometimes when you do).

As I've brought up in other threads, it isn't about Waze navigation instructions using them... It's about assisting the driver who previews his route by panning the map before he starts, and the driver who gets multiple sets of instructions to an unknown place. It is common to use a phrase like "if you get to Home Depot, you've gone too far" in casual instructions.

And yes, in a very small town, a McD's or Tim Ho's could be seen as that sort of landmark and be set accordingly.

Ultimately, I feel this is something to use your best judgment on. There is no place for an absolute here... If you have a power centre that feels like it is cluttering things, then maybe use points.

That said, I haven't seen anything that is clutter like that.
doctorkb
Posts: 4385
Answers: 4
Has thanked: 433 times
Been thanked: 1464 times
Send a message

Re: Greater Toronto Area PUR MapRaid Discussion

Post by doctorkb
I don't see the "clutter".

We have a similar "power centre" here: https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 663&zoom=3

It looks (and works) really well like this. Ideally, the smaller stores would all have point-places, but that's a work in progress.
doctorkb
Posts: 4385
Answers: 4
Has thanked: 433 times
Been thanked: 1464 times
Send a message

Re: Greater Toronto Area PUR MapRaid Discussion

Post by doctorkb
I do, but I don't have a number yet.

I'm thinking x sqft or perhaps an easier to measure "at least x meters in at least one dimension" spec.
doctorkb
Posts: 4385
Answers: 4
Has thanked: 433 times
Been thanked: 1464 times
Send a message

Re: Greater Toronto Area PUR MapRaid Discussion

Post by doctorkb
First off, I am not concerned about easy. I'm concerned about best.

Second, tools are nice, but none of them are officially supported. To claim that as a basis for any decision is inappropriate.

The best approach is to determine what a landmark is, and then document it.

Costco is a landmark.
Home Depot is a landmark.
IKEA is a landmark.
Walmart is a landmark.
Canadian Tire is a landmark.

There's a start.
doctorkb
Posts: 4385
Answers: 4
Has thanked: 433 times
Been thanked: 1464 times
Send a message

Re: Greater Toronto Area PUR MapRaid Discussion

Post by doctorkb
Shane: that's my feeling, yes.

But rather than list "Home Depot" (to the exclusion of Home Hardware), I'd sooner have a guideline that has to do with size and prominence.

I listed those ones out, as I figured that would give us a starting point for discussion -- adding to the list, then seeing what they all have in common.
doctorkb
Posts: 4385
Answers: 4
Has thanked: 433 times
Been thanked: 1464 times
Send a message

Re: Greater Toronto Area PUR MapRaid Discussion

Post by doctorkb
Let's focus this discussion on retail businesses for now -- I think parks (and ponds/lakes) of any size should be landmarked, because they add some nice depth to the map. Important to recognize the difference between undeveloped land and land zoned for greenspace, though.

As for farms -- a farm in the middle of an urban area can be landmarked, but in a rural not. We've had this discussion before. A prime example is the University of Alberta Farm in the middle of Edmonton: https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 069.396636

As for retail businesses -- I totally missed that feature in TB! Not sure how... anyhow, looking around my area, I can say that there is no reason any standalone retail store smaller than 3000 m2 should be landmarked. I'm not sure that should be the limit we set, but I don't think it should be any lower -- 3000 m2 fits a grocery store or standard London Drugs.

My suggestion on subway / train stations -- if they're underground, points. If they're above, then areas (regardless of size).
doctorkb
Posts: 4385
Answers: 4
Has thanked: 433 times
Been thanked: 1464 times
Send a message

Re: Greater Toronto Area PUR MapRaid Discussion

Post by doctorkb
I guess we could take that approach.

The only downside is that someone is going to continually say "why this, but not that?"

Another question becomes: do we include all grocery stores (3000-5000 m2) or not? What about London Drugs? It's not really "big box" but they can be big stores. And department stores like Sears and The Bay (if not part of a mall)?
doctorkb
Posts: 4385
Answers: 4
Has thanked: 433 times
Been thanked: 1464 times
Send a message

Re: Greater Toronto Area PUR MapRaid Discussion

Post by doctorkb
IamtheLexx wrote:What about places like wineries in Niagara-on-the-Lake, which is lots of open spaces without many landmarks, and is dotted with at least a dozen or more wineries. I am referring to the buildings themselves and not the entire parcels where the grapes are grown.

Would this be appropriate for NOTL?
My vote is yes. Perhaps not just the building, though, but the entire winery area (including parking lot, outbuildings, etc.)
doctorkb
Posts: 4385
Answers: 4
Has thanked: 433 times
Been thanked: 1464 times
Send a message

Re: Greater Toronto Area PUR MapRaid Discussion

Post by doctorkb
Can you please share the harmonization sheet with me (including edit rights?)

Thanks!
doctorkb
Posts: 4385
Answers: 4
Has thanked: 433 times
Been thanked: 1464 times
Send a message
Post Reply