sketch wrote:Yes. They've been there at MSY for almost a year, not causing any problems.

To supplement this, a non-driveable segment such as a runway should never be connected to the driveable segment network, so the routing engine would not be able to route you onto a runway - even if a landmark/place marker stop point was physically on top of the runway. it will route you to the nearest driveable segment

along the same lines of this conversation -- can someone with contacts at WazeHQ ask them what their advice is on the recent changes to Google Maps regarding airports? We have a lot of major airports where when you search for the airport name, the auto-complete result gets you to the google pin which is located at the geographic center of the google airport landmark -- directing the driver to go to a very wrong part of the airport, sometimes putting them in a place where there are no signs (charlotte) or can cause a lot of extra driving (nashville).

Waze has maintained that we shouldn't "hack" together solutions to make up for shortcomings in the software, but in some airports CMs/AMs are having to put in dummy roads that go out into the middle of the airport just to get drivers to the right place.

I understand the guidance to recommend that users manually select the "Waze" tab, but this is not a good option. If this is the recommendation, then the auto-complete should default only to show Waze results. I said it before and I'll say it again -- the fastest way to lose users is to get them lost on the way to the airport.

Not to resurrect what should be a very dead horse -- but as of 3.9, runways are now returned in search results (can't say for certain that they weren't before, but they definitely are now). If we continue with our current naming standard (ABC Runway 18-36), and someone searches for the airport identifier, all of the runways turn up in the search results. In my opinion, this is not desirable.

Given this, unless the search engine is modified to omit runway segments from the result, I think we should backtrack slightly and name the runways simply "Runway 18-36" and omit the identifier.

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/10 ... b2d107.jpg

voludu2 wrote:i agree with sketch and pumrum. The policy should be to leave the airport name off the runways. Waze is for cars. We don't want drivers coming up with that in search.

any objections to updating the wiki guidance to reflect this?

Should this topic remain open and separate from
viewtopic.php?f=276&t=85397

I'm OK with the proposal. I honestly don't care whether we name the runways at all.

They should never see the sign, though. And we're probably getting pedantic.

DwarfLord, I have to admit to adding a few stairways just for the heck of it. In my defense, there are actually a few officially named stairways in my editing area (steep hill where the through street which was a narrow trail 100+ years ago could not be adapted to a street). I think even a couple of houses on one I've seen.

I hope it doesn't skew. That might result in a NTSB investigation.

I believe most are already in accord on most of these points. I'm not sure when the latest runway/airport road discussion took place exactly (a few months ago), or where it was, though.

I agree on runways except that there's no reason to include any airport identifier, so "Runway 4R/22L".

I agree on elevation.

I agree on leaving restricted-access roads off the map, and this was a significant part of that former discussion. The community agrees on this, I believe.

As for standard naming, I agree with this as well. I've been doing the same in practice:

MSY - Long Term Parking
MSY - Departures
MSY - Rental Car Return
DTW - McNamara Terminal - International Arrivals
DTW - McNamara Terminal - Departures
DTW - North Terminal - Departures

...and so forth. Should be "[FAA] - {terminal if needed} - [whatever it is]", set using point places.

I think some of this is in the Wiki already, I'm just not sure where. Agreed some of it should be in the Road types article.