Waze forum

Opinions please:
https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=8&lat ... s=16841710

Would anyone edit this any differently?
Note that street DOES have house numbers, and yet is NOT drive-able.
(I may also post this in the WME Validator forum.)

EDIT:
I have changed the segment to a Walking Trail, as CBENSON suggested in the WME Validator thread. I had been under the assumption that ONLY Streets could have House Numbers.

In some countries, there are named walkways which the house address is actually named after which have the house numbers, but you have to park and then walk.

CBenson wrote:But you can't drive to the destination. Shouldn't you be closing waze when you park the car anyway?

If destinations truly are on named walking-only streets, then I think they s/could be attached and have the addresses set there. This would be an exception to the "never connect" rule we currently use.

CBenson wrote:Why can't they remain unattached and have the addresses set there? Why the exception to the "never connect" rule?

There's still a significant penalty to Walking Trail which would prevent (in most cases) Waze routing through such segments, but if it is a destination point (think private installation), why can't it be connected? Depending on how much walking there is, using the Waze map while finishing the Walk to the destination could be useful.

petervdveen wrote:

CBenson wrote:Why can't they remain unattached and have the addresses set there? Why the exception to the "never connect" rule?

I guess it doesn't exist in America, but in Europe there are larger residental area's where there are no car allowed and you have to walk a few streets.

Exactly. I am saying that if this situation exists in the US or anywhere, then it should be considered as an exception to the "no connection" rule. If the house address is named after a no-vehicles allowed "street" then why not have it set properly as a walking trail, with the house numbers associated with it attached to the named, no-vehicle street.

If they don't exist anywhere in the US, and I do not know that they do or do not, then this is moot.

But you can't drive to the destination. Shouldn't you be closing waze when you park the car anyway?

Why can't they remain unattached and have the addresses set there? Why the exception to the "never connect" rule?

I don't know. I have a few thoughts.

1) You are still going to get complaints that waze told the user to "turn right at Washington Ct" and you couldn't turn the car there.

2) I think that in most cases the time spent parking will obscure any routing insight waze will provide in routing over the walking trails.

3) I think it will be problematic to tell users its fine to use waze to walk to your destination from your parking place if waze is routing you over walking trails, but its bad if waze is routing you over drivable streets. (In other words, it would be useful to do exactly what you are suggesting every time I park downtown on the street, but we tell everyone not use waze to walk to your destination in town.)

4) You say private installation, but this logic would apply much more broadly. Why not map open air pedestrian only shopping malls with walking trails so that waze will route to the correct store (if you can get a decent GPS signal inside why not map the corridors of big shopping malls)? Why not connect the walking paths on college campuses so waze will route the final walking bit to each building? Why not map large tourist attractions (say theme parks and zoos) so that waze will route through the best entrance and tell one how to walk to the ultimate destination (say the elephant house)? Wasn't being routed on these types of walking trails what caused us to disconnect them from the road network in the first place?

AlanOfTheBerg wrote:In some countries, there are named walkways which the house address is actually named after which have the house numbers, but you have to park and then walk.

Thanks Alan.

I did finally find the following thread where CBenson mentioned some links from Petervdveen that showed examples of this I believe.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=66859&start=30#p677393

You know.. sometimes I hate the forums for how much time it takes to find things. Even the Google "Site Search" failed me this time.

GG

petervdveen wrote:Can I ask you why you didn't connect the road to the road network?

We do have a lot of this 'non-drive able' roads over here indeed
If you look for example at this map: http://goo.gl/maps/Nt7H4
you can clearly see all the small lines, those are non-drive able roads, but they do have a lot of houses and addresses on it

I was still following our Wiki guidelines, that state:

Road Types (USA) wrote:Non-drivable routes should not have any type of junction with a drivable road. Because of the way the routing engine works, Waze will route users to drive on these "Non-Driveable" road types. When crossing a drivable road, the non-drivable road should be bridged across without a junction between them and set at a different level.

After my initial post, I changed it to a Walking Trail on CBenson's suggestion, as I was not aware that house numbers could exist on anything other than a Street type.