One concern I have for the regional guidance is most new editors aren’t aware of what region they are in but have no question what state they are in. Southeast is an exception because all the states redirect to the region page. We’d need to have clear links from the state page to the region page saying to follow the region guidance. But at that point why not put the work on the states in that region to do a one time update to a region nugget and those states transclude that information.

But my prior comment still stands that I think if the thing that is being defined is across the majority of states we should have a national page covering it and send people to the state page for guidance on specific usage.

DwarfLord wrote:...come up with and apply a standard warning template for controversial guidance...

That is probably a good idea to have some basic template message at the top of that page mentioning this article may be implemented differently in different states, territories, and regions. Then in the details of the article, we would discuss the pros and cons of the guidance so people understand why there may be differences between states. We would add the link to the state/region selection page.

I really like this idea! I've done enough travelling in rural areas across the US that I can see its benefits. Not sure how one would map the above screenshot (from Dallas?) in a way that would be useful . . . but maybe it would come under "urban" and not be mapped at all?

I've really appreciated all the thought that is going into this discussion. While I can see pros and cons for both sides of the discussion, I don't feel like I have enough experience to make any kind of informed contribution. Just reading through all of your well-thought-out points (for and against), though, is giving me a glimpse into the complexity of editing the Waze map that I have not had up to this point. Thank you!

I looked this up on the app, and I have a screen shot . . . but I'm not sure how to post a screen shot here. Given the distance from me (2,158.8 miles), I obviously am not able to navigate there.

At the zoom level I would imagine I'd be at if I were slowing down to exit at the interchange, I can see the gray outlines of both Pacific Pride and the Pilot Travel Center, and both names. (The red "Biggs Junction" marker is sitting on top of the Shell station.) If I'm traveling at highway speeds because I'm not planning to exit there, it seems (to me) like the IEA would be more valuable to me than the gas station's AP's, anyway.

If there is concern about the "uninitiated" adding them "willy-nilly" wherever they wish, would it be possible to restrict adding that type of AP to senior editors . . . like JB's are restricted? And then lock them at whatever regional Interstates are locked at? Another $.02.

DwarfLord wrote:Response to kyhtak: As the Waze Map Editor is currently programmed, any editor can create an Area Place. It is true that Waze can adjust that, but if you think it's hard to get an actionable decision made here in the community, you ain't seen nothing. Trying to persuade Waze to do just about anything is virtually impossible, and even if you succeed, it could be years before it manifests in the app or editor.

So, any sentence that begins with "if we could just get Waze to change..." is usually the prelude to a lost cause. I so wish it were otherwise.

Point well taken. I wondered if creating AP's could be restricted . . . new editors don't typically draw things correctly, or give them the correct categories anyway, as has been well-demonstrated in WME.

Thanks!

I've given some thought to this as I've been driving around over the last few days, after reading through the discussion.

As someone else pointed out, when I'm driving, about all I look at are my ETA or how far to the next turn. Occasionally, I'll glance at the purple line that is my route. All the rest of the map might as well not even be there. It just provides a nice separating space between (and around) the above pieces of information.

However, when I'm stopped and looking at the map more closely, or when John is driving and I'm navigating, those IEA's, and exit numbers, would really be a help. I get quite frustrated at times, trying to figure those things out.

In other words: when I'm driving, I won't even see them. When I'm stopped or navigating as a passenger, they would be very helpful.

Thanks for the write-up, HBiede! I agree that for those regions/states that decide to adopt them, we should aim for consistency on how they are built and appear in-App, and one Wiki article that can be linked to would be a big help!

It looks like there is a fair bit of agreement on several points:

1. Most useful in rural areas

2. Not suggested for urban or complex/congested interchanges

3. Used in some regions and not others

So, to circle back around - can we create a USA wiki page for this, that can be linked to from the regions/states that want them? I think this is much better than having no published guide (as is now) or maintaining entries on each state page.

I noticed this when driving in South Dakota this week and find it quite nice to see the exit numbers on the map