Well, google's translation isn't very good. It seems to me it said something about GPS navigation systems that can be attached to phones. Still different. But, the translation I got was horrible, so I don't really know exactly what it says, hehe.

I think it is safe to say that actual progress and usage around the world shows you're wrong. It won't take that long. And people seem to only gain interest. Maybe you don't have much interest in mapping here, but lots of us do, and have done so, and continue to do so.

Because you fail to understand the licensing terms of the "free" maps that you incorrectly think we can use. You're wasting your time and our time with your negative posts. Knock it off.

Yeah, that's about right, ciroip.

Waze's eventual business model is to sell the data and to keep it free for users. This does not mesh with OpenStreetMap's ToS, which is that all derivative uses of its data must use the same terms.

In the US, our maps are based on completely-free TIGER Data from the US Census Bureau. The TIGER map is non-navigable. The roads, which are frequently wrong, have no directionality or connectivity, and many of them are out-of-place and extraneous.

If you can find a map like that for Switzerland, then let the alpha team know at alpha@waze.com and they'll implement it. Otherwise, just be glad that at least your maps are right the first time

LiborA wrote:

sketch wrote:Waze's eventual business model is to sell the data and to keep it free for users. This does not mesh with OpenStreetMap's ToS, which is that all derivative uses of its data must use the same terms.

I am not sure if this is good business model for now when Google start activity on free turn-by-turn navigation. I think better business model could be based on free turn-by-turn navigation and small payment for aditional services (e.g. navigation based on real trafic situation, see "group of friends" on screen, voice comunication with "group of friends", etc.) - in this case might have been Openstreetmap used in Waze. But this is corporate resolution and must be analyzed by management of Waze. I think that Google has beter position in US but in whole other world is Google in similar situation. But Waze cannot be so quick in develop your dataset as Google, if Google invest many and time to create your own dataset of routes. I think that management of Waze is in really hard situation.

That goes against the whole point of Waze. If you can't have the "free" along with the "social" and the "navigation", then it's not a "free social navigation" app anymore. If you're going to pay for traffic-aware navigation from Waze, you might as well pay for it from somewhere else with maps that are already complete.

An escaping criminal that activates his GPS phone in hope of getting community updates of police blockades instead of planing the clean getaway ahead of time, is not going to get far in his professional career, in my opinion.

I think trying to have the whole world mapped using as only tools:
- An unnacurate GPS device.
- Free old outdated satellite pics.
- The cartouche.
- Waze users´ patience and time.

Could be a matter of decades.

As long as waze area managers are not getting paid for their effort, you can count with your hand fingers the percentage of them still working at it after a year.

By the time waze has his map done, we can navigate through google´s street view with the information displayed full screen over the windshield just like in computer games.

Waze should concentrate efforts in its best weapon. Real time information provided by users for users. The map is just a layer of information. Waze can provide lots of other layers. POIs, Real time gas pricing, real time traffic issues (accidents, jams...) Where your friends are now,

I´m happy to be wrong with that, and happy that the progress with the map is faster than i suppose.
I hope to be wrong also with the following:
- I read here tha waze´s intention is, once the map is complete, sell it to others and get a good profit for it, so the app will remain free.

There´s something there that does not match. You, and me, and other happy mappers at waze get as only reward the free use of the app with its "in process" maps. Once they´re complete and sold to others... who´s getting the money for YOUR/OUR work? Do you really think that future owners of waze maps, those who pay certain amount of money (maybe some million dollars), are letting you use the complete map for free?
No, as you are not using it for free now. You pay with the info you provide, your time, your map edditing.

Hope i´m wrong with all this too.

I don´t work for garmin or tom tom, and, no, I don´t think waze sucks, I think waze has many good things that are to be developed. As example:
Traffic information gets wrong when the average speed calculated is taken from unnacurate data, when you park in a street your average speed goes towards zero and you send a message to the system that traffic in that road is fully (or almost) stopped. Theres a lot of work to prevent that from happening.
There is no stablished standard yet for mapping. (In the spain forum there is an intend of, at least have all spanish maps done with an unique criteria).
You edit the maps with your best intentions and then you see than when a main street has two ways fisically separated by trees or something, you have to pave it in both directions (criteria for spain), but the system puts you on the previously paved.
There are streets that turn into highways multipliying lanes and then separating for each way, there is no intersection in between.
In zones with bad gps coverage and twisted roads you see your map full of unconnected segments, missing curves you have to edit blindly by hand.
Old european little cities with small and close streets, the GPS confuses the data, believe you are again in a yet paved street when you try to pave a new one nearby.
There are lots of issues regarding mapping that must be solved, its not the same to pave well planned cities, than paving chaotic planned (missplanned) ones.

I don´t get the point of why, even in the aim of keeping the app free, and get a map on our own, we can´t use data from FREE mapping services, as an underneath layer that helps editting more accurately.

Waze does not suck (otherwise i would not be using it)

I don´t understand why sometimes the cartouche lets me edit a road, link one segment with another, make a roundabout, and so on, and other times (in the same session) it says "no permission" for the same actions over other segments.
I could understand that if there were things only available for area managers. But that thing,, now you have permission, now you don´t, for the same actions, is a bit dissapointing.

Despite my apparently negative comments, I try to collaborate with the project.

But, when the final intention at waze is selling the maps once done, who´s getting the money benefits of our work?
If the final intention was not getting money for the maps, but providing a free updated map to whoever wanted it becoming waze users, just for the compromise of helping keeping it updated, will seem fair.

(To be more graphic with an example inspired in Tom Sawyer)
Waze is requested to paint a fence near a school for 100€. Waze starts painting the fence pretending its a very funny activity. Some kids (waze users) see Waze having so much fun and they ask to join and paint the fence having fun too... Waze ask them nothing to let them have fun panting.... At the end Waze has the fence painted effortlessly, gets its 100€ for painting it, and you get the fun of painting the fence, and the satisfaction of seeing it painted.

Is that fair? Does it work ok for you?
It would be fair if Waze had to paint the fence just for the satisfaction of seeing it well painted, without getting any money for it.