Coordinator: nzahn1 & ARC: ct13 | ldriveskier
------------------------------------------------------------
Sort by
Author
Post time
Subject
Display
All posts
1 day
2 weeks
1 month
3 months
6 months
1 year
Post Reply

Ped Boardwalks / Walking Trails in MAR

Post by mtb2314
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
Country Manager
Country Manager
Posts: 558
Answers: 4
Answers: 4
Has thanked: 227 times
Been thanked: 478 times

POSTER_ID:16964538

1

Send a message
Tom N
mtb2314
MD State Manager / USA Country Manager
MD Wazeopedia
MD Editors Discord Chat
Waze Editing Best Practices

Re: Ped Boardwalks / Walking Trails in MAR

Post by DCLemur
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
Posts: 74
Has thanked: 103 times
Been thanked: 21 times
Send a message

Re: Ped Boardwalks / Walking Trails in MAR

Post by hippocampusLol
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
Has thanked: 114 times
Been thanked: 3 times
Send a message

Re: Ped Boardwalks / Walking Trails in MAR

Post by LennyNRPD
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
Country Manager
Country Manager
Posts: 479
Has thanked: 121 times
Been thanked: 900 times
Send a message

Re: Ped Boardwalks / Walking Trails in MAR

Post by LennyNRPD
subs5 wrote: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?
Probably would be the best bet to see what changes are going to occur and then re-opening the discussion.
LennyNRPD
Country Manager
Country Manager
Posts: 479
Has thanked: 121 times
Been thanked: 900 times
Send a message

Re: Ped Boardwalks / Walking Trails in MAR

Post by mtb2314
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
Country Manager
Country Manager
Posts: 558
Answers: 4
Has thanked: 227 times
Been thanked: 478 times
Send a message
Tom N
mtb2314
MD State Manager / USA Country Manager
MD Wazeopedia
MD Editors Discord Chat
Waze Editing Best Practices

Re: Ped Boardwalks / Walking Trails in MAR

Post by nzahn1
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.
nzahn1
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
Posts: 1761
Has thanked: 642 times
Been thanked: 776 times
Send a message

US Global Champ | MAR Coordinator | iOS Beta | WME Beta | Localizer
WME Profile | E-mail | MAR Forum | MAR Wiki | MD Twitter

Re: Ped Boardwalks / Walking Trails in MAR

Post by nzahn1
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).
nzahn1
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
Posts: 1761
Has thanked: 642 times
Been thanked: 776 times
Send a message

US Global Champ | MAR Coordinator | iOS Beta | WME Beta | Localizer
WME Profile | E-mail | MAR Forum | MAR Wiki | MD Twitter

Re: Ped Boardwalks / Walking Trails in MAR

Post by nzahn1
mtb2314 wrote:Also, is there a functional difference between Ped Boardwalk and Walking Trail segment type?
Yes. Ped boardwalks shouldn’t have any impact at all on routing, detistinations etc. If you use the US specific English language, it actually is non-routable pedestrian path.

Walking trails can have destinations, and routing to destinations near to the trail will navigate to the geometrically ‘closer’ end. In EN-US, they are call routable pedestrian paths.
nzahn1
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
Posts: 1761
Has thanked: 642 times
Been thanked: 776 times
Send a message

US Global Champ | MAR Coordinator | iOS Beta | WME Beta | Localizer
WME Profile | E-mail | MAR Forum | MAR Wiki | MD Twitter

Re: Ped Boardwalks / Walking Trails in MAR

Post by nzahn1
As an update, you can see that Waze has pulled Ped Paths out of the roads menu, giving them their own features. Also, they now use "ghost nodes" to connect with drivable segments, reducing the likelihood of 'too-short' drivable segments.

However, the routing/navigation/snapping behavior isn't working quite as designed/intended yet, so no green light for massive changes to the way I've been mapping them. Will update again when things change.
nzahn1
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
Posts: 1761
Has thanked: 642 times
Been thanked: 776 times
Send a message

US Global Champ | MAR Coordinator | iOS Beta | WME Beta | Localizer
WME Profile | E-mail | MAR Forum | MAR Wiki | MD Twitter
Post Reply