[New Page] Places/Airport

Moderator: USA Champs

Re: [New Page] Places/Airport

Postby kentsmith9 » Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:37 pm

USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)

[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5685
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: Boise ID and SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1577 times
Been thanked: 1796 times

Re: [New Page] Places/Airport

Postby kentsmith9 » Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:48 pm

subs5 wrote:Chicago Midway International Airport (MDW) has the different Arrival and Departure Terminals. BUT the difference is there is not one common road that accesses them. Basically three ways in and each splits so a common pin location is not adequate.

Is this a general terminal comment or rental car facility comment?

I didn't get a chance to study your links to the airport and the issue, but by this description, I don't see how three routes into a departure terminal will impact where you position the point place.
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)

[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5685
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: Boise ID and SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1577 times
Been thanked: 1796 times

Re: [New Page] Places/Airport

Postby kentsmith9 » Wed Jun 07, 2017 5:07 pm

subs5 wrote:Overall looks good.

I would add an example of a rental car company that has two companies at the same location to for completeness

Ex Dollar and Thrifty Car Rental at Providence Airport (Warwick, RI).

Since both of these are owned by the same company, this is an example of merged companies still using both names and not consolidating them. While this would be true for any business, this seems to happen enough with car rental agencies that we might as well add it to the list of possibilities.

I don't think I will add it to the table, but I will add the information into the text above it.

In your example, I noticed there was only one 3rd party reference linked to Thrifty. The Dollar web site also includes this location and I found the 3rd party link to Dollar, so I added that link.
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)

[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5685
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: Boise ID and SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1577 times
Been thanked: 1796 times

Re: [New Page] Places/Airport

Postby kentsmith9 » Wed Jun 07, 2017 9:45 pm

sketch wrote:I would still prefer to see "Avis – DEN" for the counter and "Avis rental car return – DEN" for the return.

I think folks searching for an Avis will look for the search result that says "Avis" by itself or set off by punctuation from other components of the name.

Thinking from a search perspective, I think a list of results that shows "Avis" "Avis" "Avis – DEN" "Avis rental car return – DEN" "Avis" is easier to read and understand than one that shows "Avis" "Avis" "Avis Rental Car Counter - DEN" "Avis Rental Car Return – DEN" "Avis". The extra words and capitals in this case, to me, would give the initial impression that those might be wrong results. Having "Avis" be the focus by being either still the bulk of the name or, at least for the car return, set off as the only capitalized word in the bulk of the name makes the results more legible, I think.

I believe this group of paragraphs is the same thought, which I believe is that for locations with separate Counters and Returns, you propose that the counter be named the short "Avis - DEN" matching the same name given for the Single location types as in:
  • Single location for counter and return
    • Avis - DEN
  • Split locations for counter and return
    • Avis - DEN
    • Avis rental car return - DEN

Where I am proposing we differentiate the name for single locations vs separate locations with:
  • Single location for counter and return
    • Avis - DEN
  • Split locations for counter and return
    • Avis rental car counter - DEN
    • Avis rental car return - DEN

I think the second way is better for people searching because with the split locations, your example does not clarify the counter location is not a car return. If I had previously seen an entry for "Avis - IAD" I know from experience that has the car return. Now with a split location, the name does not clarify there is NOT a car return under that same name. I think that will cause more confusion than if we clarify when a location is not both functions.

Also, the naming to me is too long and similar in the above second example. I had originally proposed using slightly different terminology to help differentiate the two names with

  • Split locations for counter and return
    • Avis rental counter - DEN
    • Avis car return - DEN

sketch wrote:I see a difference in usage (grammatically speaking) between "DEN – Rental Car Return" and "Avis Rental Car Return – DEN". In the former "Rental Car Return" is the "title" of the place so should use title case. In the latter "rental car return" is supplemental information to the "title" of the place (and proper noun) "Avis".

LOL. I didn't recognize that you were proposing the title case was only under the condition that "Rental Car Return" was used as the main place name and when part of the rental agency as in "Avis rental car return" it is sentence case.

While I can see the logic, I'm not sure it makes any different to me visually in the search results. I would prefer to keep it consistent since a "Avis Rental Car Return" is a place too, but if we can get some additional support to make the guidance as follows I will add it as such:
  • Avis rental car return - use sentence case when lead by the rental agency.
  • DEN - Rental Car Return - use title case when lead by the airport code without an agency.
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)

[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5685
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: Boise ID and SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1577 times
Been thanked: 1796 times

Re: [New Page] Places/Airport

Postby kentsmith9 » Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:39 pm

jm6087 wrote:I may be wrong but I think ultimately Sketch was wanting Avis to start the name and not DEN.

It does when the agency is named.

DEN is only first when it is a common Rental Car Facility and there is no agency in the place name.

We are in agreement on that element (as far as I know).
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)

[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5685
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: Boise ID and SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1577 times
Been thanked: 1796 times

Re: [New Page] Places/Airport

Postby kentsmith9 » Thu Jun 15, 2017 3:29 pm

Kartografer wrote:I do think it would be good to have consistency on using hyphens with places that start with the airport code, whether terminals or car rental facilities. I favor not having a hyphen in there, as shown in the current section on terminals.

I could support this.
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)

[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5685
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: Boise ID and SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1577 times
Been thanked: 1796 times

Re: [New Page] Places/Airport

Postby MacroNav » Thu Feb 28, 2019 6:04 pm

I am requesting the article provide explicit guidance for when, and when NOT to use the Airport place type. I suggest that only airports with businesses that provide services to the public should have an airport place type.

The GIS-L script, google, and other sources have helpfully provided data for registered airports & airstrips. Editors have drawn Airport Area Places around many of these points on the map. However, I have found that many/most of these places are private strips that provide no public services. Within 20 miles of my home there are several dozen "airport" points shown in GIS-L. Two provide commercial services, and none have scheduled flights. Drawing Airport Area Places over every landing strip does not help Wazers, and in my opinion can be confusing if they're looking for an airport for visual orientation, but nothing is there.

Here are some common situations that might be pointed out in the article:

1. unimproved grass field on a farm - no place, no runway segment

2. residential community (usually gated) with a private runway - no place, runway segment

3. general aviation airfield, with fences, improved/paved runways, hangars, etc. Will have businesses providing services to pilots, potentially chartered flights, but no scheduled services - Area Place, PP for businesses, runway segments

4. airport providing scheduled flights - Area place, PPs for airlines & other businesses, runway segments

A "runway" segment should be drawn if it is an improved gravel runway, or certainly paved, that potentially could be confused with a roadway. The registered name and identifier could be applied to this segment, but in the case of a standalone landing strip with no services, no AP or PP should be applied.
MacroNav
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:48 pm
Location: Wasilla, Alaska, USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 34 times

Re: [New Page] Places/Airport

Postby MacroNav » Fri Mar 01, 2019 10:28 pm

The airports I suggest not adding to the map are not noticeable by any car in traffic, and if you told someone it was an airport they would laugh at you. I'm talking about a hayfield. The problem is not even necessarily airports added in the past, but now that they are so easily viewable in GIS-L, editors are adding them just because there's a dot there. They are not used by any pilots other than the property owner, and maybe not even then.

Here's a couple "airports". Zoom out to 1 and pan around the map with GIS-L airports on. Have a look. Do you think all those dots should be airport area places?

https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 31.3875866
MacroNav
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:48 pm
Location: Wasilla, Alaska, USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 34 times

Re: [New Page] Places/Airport

Postby MacroNav » Sun Mar 03, 2019 6:11 pm

I took 5 minutes to pan around the map in a few states and easily found FAA points that I believe shouldn't be mapped at all - and thankfully they have not yet been. But per the current guidance they should be. Does that make sense?

Brosius Field Airport (9NE8) Logan County, Nebraska. Farm field - no runway, no buildings. https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 844&zoom=4

Diamond Bar Jones Airport, Nebraska. They've actually mowed an area for a plane to land. Nothing else there. https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 686&zoom=4

Rainbow Field, Texas - nothing there https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 02.2334685

Whites airport, Iowa - middle of a corn field. https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 999&zoom=4

Martin Fierro Airport, middle of a field, Wisconsin. https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 985&zoom=5

Blews Airport, middle of a farm, New Jersey https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 288&zoom=5
MacroNav
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:48 pm
Location: Wasilla, Alaska, USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 34 times

Re: [New Page] Places/Airport

Postby MacroNav » Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:12 am

I don't understand why there is so much support for cluttering the map & search results with "airports" that are only potential landing strips. When I search for airport, in my mind only three results should appear - the municipal and regional airports in my area. But instead I see a bunch of landing strips, and the actual airports are lost in the results on another page.

What do you think is the percentage of people using the Waze app that are looking for directions to an airport providing scheduled service, versus those looking for a landing strip in the middle of a farm for a crop duster that is used once or twice a year? These two types of facilities should not be treated the same.

If there is a business we add a place. If there is no business, we do not add a place. If there is no business entity providing airport services, it should not be a place - it's like an RPP. It's private, not for use by anyone else, stay out, you don't belong here if you don't already know where it is.

I'm pretty disillusioned with this process. I thought it was a simple request to ask that editors show some reflection before adding these places to the map.
MacroNav
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:48 pm
Location: Wasilla, Alaska, USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 34 times

PreviousNext

Return to US Wiki Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mapman44