Here, i've looped the Walking Trail around so that both ends are junctioned to the same drivable road. As you can see, now it will route to the same relative location, regardless of where you put the destination pin on the WT.

CBenson wrote:Has there been any change in how routing is effected by unconnected walking trails? Waze still kind of routes me to the end of unconnected walking trails. This route to 1600 Ritchie Hwy, Arnold, MD is still effected by the unconnected B & A Trail.

IMHO, walking trails should rarely ever be mapped as disconnected segments. I've always felt that it is better to connect WTs and disable turns than to have them completely disconnected from the road system. Routing to destinations on these disconnected segments is hard to predict precisely bc we don't know the exact rules. But yes, the behavior for destinations on disconnected WTs appear to be the same. It sometimes will try to route to the closest drivable road that is nearest to the disconnected end of the WT. The end of the WT that Waze chooses to route to is the end that gives the shortest walking distance on the WT to the destination. The other possible behavior of disconnected WTs is simply routing to the nearest drivable segment to the destination pin.

Hope I explained that alright...

DwarfLord wrote:

TheLastTaterTot wrote:The end of the WT that Waze chooses to route to is the end that gives the shortest walking distance on the WT to the destination.

If I understood some earlier comments, is that the new plan for connected WT as well?

Given Pz's recent announcement about Waze having fixed the "bug", I'm not so sure anymore. We don't really know what Waze thinks is the "bug" in this situation, so we can only wait for the deployment to be released.

Nevertheless, my hunch is that Waze sought to fix only the "terminal junction" bug such that the new routing behavior will perhaps ignore the disconnected end of a WT (i.e., the dead-end) and will use the other junction instead. For a WT that is connected on both ends, I suspect the behavior will remain as it is now. That is, it will route to the junction that results in the shortest walk to the final destination. If that turns out to be the case, I agree with your assessment. It will indeed be an issue and will break any WT hack that was used for routing to a destination with multiple independent entrances (e.g., train stations).

... How the change will affect a completely unconnected WT is even harder to predict.

herrchin wrote:

TheLastTaterTot wrote:...such that the new routing behavior will perhaps ignore the disconnected end of a WT (i.e., the dead-end) and will use the other junction instead

Hmm, perhaps it's the factoring in of disconnected WT junctions that's the bug in every case? There's still a junction there, just a terminal one. Thus a completely disconnected WT currently still has 2 junctions potentially causing that WT segment to be evaluated? Conspiracy theory report at 9.

yeah, that's the idea and the most likely perspective of Waze. But for those who have been using WTs to address the issue of multiple entrances, routing based on minimal walking distance is also considered a bug.

In light of the changed behavior of Walking Trails, as illustrated by TaterTot's images above, can we please remove the old image and associated text, describing the previous behavior?
(I can affirm that I've been trying to make the old behavior happen for a special case, and it no longer works)

Also, the text in the "new" Walking Trails section should be revised to reflect the current behavior, and de-emphasize the previous unwanted behavior.

I have a location where a Walking Trail actually crosses a street (not connected) and routing goes past that spot, to get closer to the destination itself.

At another part of this assembly, the WT is actually connected to a Private Road, with ingoing turns to the WT disabled. Still, the result is to route as physically close as possible, rather than even to the connection point.
(Unfortunately, I'm either a moron, or Tapatalk doesn't have the capability to include images in a post, so I'll have to add it later.)

A troublesome noob managed to read in to the following passage that Pedestrian Boardwalks *should* be mapped.

Road Types USA wrote: Orientation or destination applications involving foot or bicycle paths that do not require routing, such as marking where an obvious bicycle path crosses a road or where a trailhead is located, should not use the Walking Trail type. Use Pedestrian Boardwalks, Stairways, or Point Places as appropriate.

I'd like to remove the ambiguity of "as appropriate" or, at the very least, add the word, "only" beforehand. Perhaps we could work a "sparingly" and/or a "special cases" in there, as well.

Hi everyone, late to the discussion but seems timely in the draft that was presented by voludu2.

I don't intend to disrupt things but will again echo my contrary viewpoint to the fundamentals involved in such decisions. Summarizing them, they are:

• Editor discussion about new features and adding content to the map is almost consistently to add less, reduce map content, keep it "simpler" (simpler for editors, not future users). I don't agree. Waze CEO said he wanted more content over and over.
• Editor discussions tend to only think about what we can do in the map without thinking how we can influence waze various ways (a) by asking for features, (b) by coercing Waze to add features because the way we added MORE content demands they do it. Routing can be affected by the algorithms in Waze, not just the map.
• Editors seem to have a RATHER LARGE bias against editing in ways they do not like or have interest in on the map. Just because some people like to bike and jog more than you does not mean that these routes are not valuable in Waze. I find it disappointing that many high ranking editors think only abuot what they like and experience and do not open up to the broader set of interests of others using Waze. Keep and open mind and encourage new ideas!
• Walking trails and boardwalks are in WME. Why would we try to hamstring people from using them. Big picture is that you cannot stop people from using them. Why? Because they are there! Think of all the conflict and mixed signals about these road types when AMs, SMs, and RCs, are going to be chastizing new editors or even moderate editors from adding content when... the type is already there!

I get that the main and most tactical tool we have is WME. I also get Waze staff can seem unresponsive at times because they are juggling multiple priorties. It doesn't mean we should operate thinking WME is the only solution.

I also get that sometimes there are tactical routing problems that an editor may feel need to be fixed now. But... if we fix all these we devolve to the least useful FUTURE map. Yea--it is a balance, but something that seems out of balance in how it is discussed.

Maybe we can get some additional guidance at the meetup. I know that if the GCs wrote waze on this, they would respond. Has anyone tried?

* Mapping walking and biking trails might encourage wazers to waze while walking, running, or biking on these trails and on drivable roads. This can make roads seem slower than they actually are. As of March 2015 the waze map should discourage pedestrians and cyclists from using Waze. The waze map should not look useful to pedestrians and cyclists.

So you're trying to influence how the general public uses Waze by discouraging them?!? I I think this is completely the wrong way to go. The FUTURE Waze should be able to route you door to door running, walking, crawling, or in your jetsonmobile. How much do we add now. I would say that walking and jogging and taking trails is part of a user's end to end experience.

Discouraging use while walking is nuts to me. I would rather Waze programmers do their job and raise the priority of this issue so the algorithms handle it and we map to reality on the ground.

In some rare cases, walking trails can be used to correct Waze routing. Examples include ...

I get there are near-term tactical issues some may feel that need to be addressed now, but this is a kluge in the map that is not reality. I don't think it is always an optimal solution for the future state of the map.

Discouraged uses
It is best not to map walkways unless they support driving Wazers in reaching their destinations. When they are not needed, they should be removed to protect routing and to keep the map simple. ...

I don't agree because I don't think we should be protecting routing via WME as the only means. We should be getting Waze to have routing algorithms work correctly in a KNOWN way.

...In less-dense areas, long Walking Trails might be less harmful, as long as they are not connected to the drivable roads. On the other hand, some new editors will see these as examples and add more walking trails. ...

So now we are going to discourage use of trails because they may become examples other editors will follow? Yikes. Yes. Let's discourage new ideas and uses of Waze. Call the fire department ala Fahrenheit 451.

Short walkways in small parks are uneeded if they serve no destinations and are not useful landmarks, and should be removed from the map.

The map should not create the impression that waze is for use when walking, running, or cycling.

Of course, I obviously don't agree with that either.

I know that many of you must feel that restricting the use of Waze, not opening it up to other types of users, etc. is important. I just wanted to present a contrary view (in which I believe). I would rather add content, be inclusive and add users to the Waze community -- not restrict and limit and exclude.

Perhaps we can discuss at the Meetup.

I think to claim I have a fault in logic is a bit extreme and not correct. I understand all your points and understand a balance is needed and evolution of approach may be called for. I am suggesting the balance is not in the right place and suggesting a more open mind.

PesachZ wrote:... It is not that we don't want to support these users, rather support must first come staff before we start to modify the map for them. ...There's a big gap between the ceos future outlook, and the practical short term outlook for the app

This is a general tenancy to an approach I listed at the beginning of my message. I am suggesting we be more engaged with Waze in where they are going on these topics. I have not heard if a delegate has had an interaction on this topic with Waze programmers/staff. I also like to have the cart before the horse sometimes. Eat dessert first. Think out of the box.

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.

Hey everyone.

Back after a week of insanity. I got a new position at work and it absorbed me completely trying to move offices and start to learn the new ropes to deal with there... a daunting task, still.

Regarding this topic, I thought I would reply on the past few posts.

(1) I don't think we should add content that causes immediate major problems for users, partiularly wrong routing.

I don't think all walkways cause problems. There are probably some situations that are more sensitive than others. I think there are ways to map these features without causing problems. Rather than just banning all of them and being ultra-conservative about what future editors might do, why not just allow the content where it makes sense. Lots of new editors like doing this. Let's not close out another group of interested editors. Let's direct them in a good way.

Here's a question. If the walk-way network is isolated from the regular driving network, there is not a problem, right? If so, then that could be a requirement.

(2) I do think we should add content that is pushing the envelope that adds more value to the tool and map, particularly if it goes in a direction that Waze has in mind.

Since they have walking trail and boardwalk, seems like they are going in that direction. We ought to verify this at the Meetup or via messages to Waze. I don't mind doing that, but have not sent any messages yet.

(3) I really like some of DwarfLord's list of what information we are lacking.

I do have hope that Waze would do some of these things. They have been rather responsive on a number of fronts. If they cannot be responsive, they have indicated in the past why they cannot be responsive, which is often good enough.

I will champion this question set to Waze at the Meetup along with anyone else that wants to do so. If you want to, let's coordinate and see what we can get done.

I still maintain that taking a more passive approach to new content is not the best path, similar to what PhanomSoul seemed to be expressing well in his post above. A more aggressive, dynamic, inclusive (of new editors and ideas) path is probably the best to most quickly grow the tool and avoid stagnation.