Ped Boardwalks / Walking Trails in MAR

Coordinator: stephenr1966 & ARC: ply8808
------------------------------------------------------------

Moderators: delilush, ply8808, nzahn1, stephenr1966, ct13

Ped Boardwalks / Walking Trails in MAR

Postby mtb2314 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:56 pm

Hey all,

We had a lively chat on the subject of Pedestrian Boardwalks / Walking Trails in the Maryland Discord channel the other day, and it was suggested that we post the topic here on the forums for further discussion.

Currently we have some segments in MAR that are Pedestrian Boardwalks or Walking Trails, and they more or less fall into a few main categories:

1) Named paths with no HNs or GIS points - but are walkways through residential areas (many of these in Baltimore)

https://www.waze.com/editor?env=usa&lon ... s=21880186
https://www.waze.com/editor?env=usa&lon ... s=82672561
https://www.waze.com/editor?env=usa&lon ... s=84373188

2) Named paths that have GIS address points (but may or may not have HNs saved) - the street is named but is not driveable (also many of these in Baltimore, as well as Washington Grove)

https://www.waze.com/editor?env=usa&lon ... s=21900007
https://www.waze.com/editor?env=usa&lon ... s=78288330
https://www.waze.com/editor?env=usa&lon ... =504781228

3) Walkways from parking lots to popular places (like a train station)

https://www.waze.com/editor?env=usa&lon ... =509532604

4) Generic paths in small parks

https://www.waze.com/editor?env=usa&lon ... s=76958711
https://www.waze.com/editor?env=usa&lon ... s=22096365

5) Long, landmark, named paths that traverse long distances such as C&O Canal Towpath and NCR (Torrey Brown) Trail (some exist, others like Rock Creek Trail don't exist in Waze)

https://www.waze.com/editor?env=usa&lon ... s=82272849
https://www.waze.com/editor?env=usa&lon ... s=79886853
https://www.waze.com/editor?env=usa&lon ... s=80062967

Many of these long paths are not continuously mapped - they stop and start. And while they are not driveable, I do believe they are valuable as landmarks in the Waze map.

Sorry for the long post, but what do folks think should be the standards for these situations? And when we do use them, should they be Pedestrian Boardwalks or Walking Trails? HN's or no HN's? Connected or disconnected? I have also heard that Waze staff is considering changes to these non-driveable segment types. How does that affect things?

May the debate begin!
mtb2314
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 11:05 am
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Has thanked: 127 times
Been thanked: 135 times

Re: Ped Boardwalks / Walking Trails in MAR

Postby nzahn1 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:18 pm

Thanks for the post! Its my opinion that until we are 100% sure that non-routable pedestrian paths will never ever have the possibility of snapping users, collecting stop points for destinations, or appearing in search results, I think the status quo is the safest route.

My interpretation of the status quo is:
IF a path has addresses or destinations (Places) associated on it, it should be mapped as a ROUTABLE Pedestrian Path.

IF a path has many GPS traces and is parallel to a road that could be affected by GPS drift / bad speed data, then it should be mapped as a NON-ROUTABLE Pedestrian Path.

IF a path has no/few GPS traces OR is not parallel to roads that could be affected by GPS drift / bad speed data, then it SHOULD NOT BE MAPPED.
[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
Rank 6 | US Local Champ | Mid-Atlantic Assist. Coordinator | WME Beta | iOS Beta
WME Profile E-Mail MD Twitter MDForum MDWiki Welcome!
nzahn1
Coordinators
Coordinators
 
Posts: 1517
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 6:45 pm
Location: Maryland, USA (SM)
Has thanked: 829 times
Been thanked: 948 times

Re: Ped Boardwalks / Walking Trails in MAR

Postby subs5 » Sun Feb 11, 2018 7:17 pm

I would lean to if there are HNs then map as routable Ped Path.

Others should be removed and not to be mapped.

Main reason for removing is too many problems creep up with the others and we don't get notified when there are changes on the back end where something that was not a problem now becomes a problem. aka RPP routing.
subs5
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 7:05 pm
Location: Virginia, USA
Has thanked: 586 times
Been thanked: 907 times

Re: Ped Boardwalks / Walking Trails in MAR

Postby DCLemur » Sun Feb 11, 2018 9:09 pm

I would agree with Subs.

If there are HN's, and therefore have info req'd for routing, keep them.
If not, then eliminate the Ped/boardwalks/walking trails. (The app is for motor vehicle routing, right?)

Why would we complicate matters?
DCLemur
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2017 11:11 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC
Has thanked: 107 times
Been thanked: 20 times

Re: Ped Boardwalks / Walking Trails in MAR

Postby LennyNRPD » Tue Feb 13, 2018 5:57 am

I'm in agreement with the above replies. I personally don't see any advantage of mapping Walking trails and so on. As in the past we have always used a PED Boardwalk only if the location in question has HN's and I think that is perfectly fine to map for routing purposes as we do have some mapped like that. Anything else in my opinion should not be mapped.

Now I am definitely in the means of debating if the location has a good amount of GPS tracks and it appears to be a heavily used trail or path etc., I don't see any reason why it can't be brought up for other SM's to discuss as I am open to that and reviewing the area.
LennyNRPD
Waze Mentor
Waze Mentor
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 12:05 pm
Location: Virginia
Has thanked: 109 times
Been thanked: 539 times

Re: Ped Boardwalks / Walking Trails in MAR

Postby hippocampusLol » Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:45 pm

As an editor I’m opposed to anything that adds no navigational value, or compromises navigation and complicates editing. That said, we also need to consider the client side… is there really no navigational value? When driving, I really appreciate seeing trail crossings (Appalachian Trail, Capital Crescent Trail, etc). That alerts me to the possibility of pedestrians. When I’m supplying driving support to hikers, I know exactly where to go, stop and wait. They need not be continuously mapped, but are valuable landmarks as easy-to-identify trails.
hippocampusLol
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 2:05 pm
Has thanked: 112 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Ped Boardwalks / Walking Trails in MAR

Postby nzahn1 » Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:50 pm

HippoCampusLoL wrote:As an editor I’m opposed to anything that adds no navigational value, or compromises navigation and complicates editing. That said, we also need to consider the client side… is there really no navigational value? When driving, I really appreciate seeing trail crossings (Appalachian Trail, Capital Crescent Trail, etc). That alerts me to the possibility of pedestrians. When I’m supplying driving support to hikers, I know exactly where to go, stop and wait. They need not be continuously mapped, but are valuable landmarks as easy-to-identify trails.

I’d agree there is a ‘landmark’ or ‘situational awareness’ value to well marked trails that cross major roads (like the AT). If staff moves development to a point where there is no risk of unintended side effects to motorists, if endorse mapping these well known ‘landmark’ trails that are an aid to navigation (akin to RRs).
[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
Rank 6 | US Local Champ | Mid-Atlantic Assist. Coordinator | WME Beta | iOS Beta
WME Profile E-Mail MD Twitter MDForum MDWiki Welcome!
nzahn1
Coordinators
Coordinators
 
Posts: 1517
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 6:45 pm
Location: Maryland, USA (SM)
Has thanked: 829 times
Been thanked: 948 times

Re: Ped Boardwalks / Walking Trails in MAR

Postby subs5 » Tue Feb 13, 2018 3:04 pm

It appears there may be changes to the way Waze handles Walking Trails soon.

Should we defer this discussion till that occurs since it might change?
subs5
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 7:05 pm
Location: Virginia, USA
Has thanked: 586 times
Been thanked: 907 times

Re: Ped Boardwalks / Walking Trails in MAR

Postby SpencerFG » Tue Feb 13, 2018 3:52 pm

Trails can also be destinations so it would be nice to be able to find the closest access without having to map many PPs.
SpencerFG
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2015 10:05 pm
Location: Virginia, Southern California USA
Has thanked: 54 times
Been thanked: 27 times

Re: Ped Boardwalks / Walking Trails in MAR

Postby mtb2314 » Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:01 pm

I agree with all the various sentiments here - not mapping if they aren't used (as evidenced by GPS tracks), not mapping if they don't have HNs and don't contribute to routing, etc.

But I agree with the other side of the coin as well, that some of these paths are named landmarks (C&O, Cap Crescent, W&OD, NCR) that have a LOT of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Whether you are looking for the trail so you can park and get on it (which PP's definitely help but aren't the same as seeing it as you are driving, approaching it) or to Mike's point, alert you to pedestrian and bike crossings, I think it would make sense to have a consensus approach to these paths instead of a patchwork of inconsistent mapping.

Also, is there a functional difference between Ped Boardwalk and Walking Trail segment type?

I understand that staff may be making changes, and I am happy to wait until then to make any edits, but I think it definitely helps to have some of these paths mapped. And even for the urban paths that are named with no HN's, there can also be a benefit to mapping them for landmarks.
mtb2314
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 11:05 am
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Has thanked: 127 times
Been thanked: 135 times

Next

Return to US Mid Atlantic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users