I think there is a general need for a "do not map here" road type Shouldn't allow a lock below rank, umm let me see, 3? 4?

As to crosswalks on busy roads, the example picture voludu gave is all right, but it kind of looks like an average crosswalk at any city intersection. I don't think we would map those, we should be looking for something that's clearly an unusual case, perhaps of a walking trail crossing a highway. Something like the one for the Appalachian Trail crossing Palisades Interstate Parkway.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.284105, ... jHCCnA!2e0

Hikers call it Palisades Frogger. That's around MM 32.7 south. I don't think there's a north warning sign. The downside to this one is that there's no clearly visible crossing point on the road. I never walked the trail, so I don't know if the sign is inexact, or if the trail broadens out at the road so you can select your crossing point.

Refresh me - wasn't the length limit a performance/stability issue? That would then apply regardless of segment type, I would think.

I'd say the upshot shoudl be that we ask Waze to revert this change, that's it. It breaks existing parts of the map, serves a useful function, and is unique. Perhaps the name of the seg type shoudl be changed and/or restricted to ranked editors, to prevent mis-use.

But this unexpected change is just no good.

New changes May 24 2015?

I would think mapping walking trails would prevent adjacent roads from getting false speed data.
And a properly placed place target would fix the routing issue.

If only there was a way to lock non-mapped walking trails so new editors wont map them.............
Can we get a "erase" tool to remove viable walking trails from the sat. layer?

I think the only thing that's changed is, if anything has changed, is the way Waze handles destinations on walking trails which are not connected to roads. When they are connected, Waze has always been able to bring you there via the walking trail, I believe. So the Roaring Camp setup should be fine – when it's a deliberate use like this, there shouldn't be a problem. The problem would arise when a long walking trail (like this one) was connected only at some faraway point.

If I had to guess, if Waze does make a change to those types, "walking trail" would be made unroutable like runways and railroads are, and "pedestrian boardwalk" would be kept routable for situations where a destination is legitimately on a pedestrian-only road. But that's just my guess, and just what I'd personally do. That'd allow us to represent things like the bike trail on the map without having to worry about routing, while allowing us also to have a type useful for situations like Roaring Camp and I guess Epcot.

I would leave them alone unless they are actually causing problems. My guess is they're acting like railroads act now, and are essentially invisible to the routing server. My opinion is that they look quite nice

vectorspace wrote:If Waze said they were never going to consider this group of users, then that would be key information to not only uphold the draft above, but to say it is too weak. Right now it seems to uninformed. Recall the similar debate at a meetup where Waze wanted more landmarks. Vocal champs pushed back for various reasons and said no, surprisingly to me. What happened? Adding Places became a feature in the app that prompts everyone to enter a place at the end of their drive.

I am fairly certain that Waze has said, perhaps not in so many words, that they are never going to consider navigation for pedestrians.

Fredo-p wrote: If that's the case, then Waze better make sure that the option to select vehicle type better be out soon or URs are going to pop up about Wrong Driving Directions.

Not sure what you mean. Pedestrians and cyclists are not planned vehicle types.

Why would we need to use walking trails to prevent data pollution? Segments don't need to be drivable to be used by merger. See railroads. Pedestrian boardwalk (the non-routable one) is more suitable for this purpose.

That is a years-old length limit (as applied to segments in general). The most recent length limit proposed by staff is 100,000 m (i.e., 100 km, or approx. 62 mi).

The 10,000 m recommendation for railroads may be based on old info (considering it was written by a champ who used to be around a lot more than he is now), or maybe it's just for "ease of editing", or both. Either way, it's not really necessary, and there's no real reason not to follow the general rule of not using any segments longer than 100 km / 62 mi.