Awesome!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As a pilot, Waze user, and editor, I use Waze to get to many airports. I never search the category Airport, but I do search for the FAA/IATA/name of the airport. But, what I have found in my times of going to unfamiliar airports is that having the AP show on the Waze navigation app tells me I'm close and need to start looking for where I need to turn in. We try our best as editors to update the stop points, but we all know that doesn't happen all the time. Having the AP lets me as a driver know I'm close and start reading signs or looking for what could be an entrance instead of following the app. Where does this happen the most --- small, private or semi private strips that have very little signage. Most airports aren't like SFO or ORD with plenty of signage. It's one small green sign saying turn left. Then, next thing you know there's an airport. I would like to keep airports (if I can land a plane there I want my wife to be able to come get me) left as AP until we have 100% of the stop points correct. I suspect that will never happen.

Thank you,

Sean

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but two quick examples. 9X1 airport in Texas. It is privately owned. There is one small business there that doesn't do a whole lot of advertising. It's in the woods off the main road. It does have an identifier, but that's about all it has. https://www.waze.com/en-US/editor/?env= ... 863.167963 9X1 had it's stop point on SH-99 W. https://www.waze.com/en-US/editor/?env= ... =502891986. Because there was an AP, I was able to see on the app that I was not heading to where the airport was. I had to figure out how to get to the airport. With no AP, I would have had to go home, get on google earth or something, and find where the actual entrance was. The AP allowed me to make it to my destination. Obviously, that night I fixed the stop point.

Pine Mountain Lake Airport is a fly-in community. But, they have regular fly-ins there so, having it on the map, is good for Waze, because people drive and fly into that community. https://www.waze.com/en-US/editor/?env= ... 138.339176. So, just to say it's a fly in community, should not be the sole reason to make it runway only.

I would like to see all the hangars and public parking spaces included in that AP. Give the biggest fingerprint we can for the app.

Sean

I'm sorry that you feel disillusioned. But, the app should be for everyone. Not just non-pilots. If a strip is not there, it shouldn't be mapped. But, if it is there, it should. If I am a private pilot and I search for an airport I want to go to a place where I can go see planes. Should I be removed from using Waze because I don't just search for our regional airports? Of course not. The idea of Waze is to be used by all. I think we have all agreed with the idea, if there is an FAA identifier, someone has taken the time to make sure that airport qualifies as an airport. And, if that airport doesn't actually exist, it's our job as editors to remove it from the map. Like the McDonald's example above. It has to actually be there to count. But, if it's there, we add it. My 2 cents.

Sean

I support this as well. Glad we could work it out.

Sean

If I'm following correctly, this really boils down to how our RC/ARC feel about AP's. In one area, having a little more depth to the app is our new marching orders. In other places, the app is overcrowded, so as few AP's as possible. But, what I don't understand is, if a person searches for an airport in the middle of nowhere are they really expecting a Chicago ORD some 300 miles away, or are they expecting a general aviation airport? I would venture they are expecting a general aviation airport. So, while I agree that a purely private strip, made by Joe Bob for his Ag-Cat (https://www.flickr.com/photos/captrh/17484984785) is not a benefit to the general public, most other airports are in fact useful. And, I think airports should be area points, unless certain regions want to add to their wiki that airports of certain types should be PP's. Every region has their own wiki. So, if the RC/ARC wants to deviate from the standard, that's the place to do it.

Respectfully,

Sean

Great looking page. I made a few direct changes.

https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/in ... did=154243

I was just thinking it might be good to add one more section at the end. (I have not yet added it.)

sketch wrote:Regarding car rental facilities, ... the text is good, but the "on-premises" and "off-premises" labels are a bit confusing. ...

At first I disagreed...but then I recognized my original suggestion to have these section names was based on whether the facility was inside or outside the airport grounds. I now recognize that is irrelevant and it is based on whether they (rental car facilities) are combined or separate.

sketch wrote:If there is an airport-owned single facility that is physically separate from the airport grounds, it should still be handled like a unified facility onsite (I think Vegas is like this). If there are separate spots for each rental company that are still on airport grounds, they should get their own Places (e.g., Detroit). One thing I'd add: even where there are separate rental car buildings, sometimes they are all on the same street or in the same general area, and a general "

Code: Select all

 Rental Car Return" Place can be helpful in those cases (e.g., Detroit, where each company has a separate building and lot, but all are on the same street).[/quote]
+1
Good catch, Marc. 

I support all of Marc's changes.

Good here.