now is the time to make suggestions

suggestions from wxw777 incorporated into published version here-
https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/Pl ... al_feature

when to use area vs point table on places wiki has been updated
and Natural feature added to detailed guidance section

thanks all for your help and patience.

Despite my attempted defense of the current guidance for Forest/Grove, I can understand the arguments put forward by proponents of the more liberal standard and I have been more or less swayed to their side. The only thing I would suggest is a sentence stating that Forest/Grove does cover the native water layer and that any water underneath Forest/Grove needs to be remapped using the appropriate category AP. 

Perhaps:
”Natural Feature - Forest / Grove - Area - Do not map individual trees. Remap any water covered by the AP.”

I really like the removal of the National Forest language. I felt that that created confusion.
 

ldriveskier wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 12:40 pm

jm6087 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 11:26 am  

My recommendation is the following:

Natural Feature - Forest / Grove - Area - Do not map individual trees. 

 

I'm not trying to be funny, but what if there are two trees together? Can those be mapped? It's unfortunately that some editors will take it literally and infer that they can do so.

 

This highlights one of the concerns that several of the Michigan editors had with changing the guidance, that once mapping this category was allowed, that we would get all kinds of crazy stuff if there weren’t specific constraints.

I personally believe that we would be best off to restrict the creation of very large unnamed forest APs for ease of editing. I’m not exactly sure what would be defined as very large without sitting in front of a computer; maybe 100 km²? Something small enough that the entirety of it could be seen at the highest zoom level. 

On the opposite end of the spectrum, while I like the idea of smaller APs, obviously there is a size at which they are too small to render in the app effectively. I’m not sure what that number is, but we could consider a minimum recommended size. Perhaps 1000 m²? This seems more objective than trying to count the number of trees.

Joe’s concern makes total sense to me, and it was for the same reason that I did not like mapping national forests. What is green supposed to signify, anyway? I’m not sure there’s a good answer for this, because golf courses and parks are green on the map, so users are already aware of the fact that green does not always equal trees.

ojlaw wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 2:14 pm i'm in favor of a change with a caveat- instead of just the table saying it's ok to map there is a section for Natural features added under "Detailed guidance for select categories" in the places wiki. The natural features section can address the concerns of mapping over existing water layers in the app, identify how many trees to map,  etc.. as others have pointed out editors will read it's ok to map trees and go forth mapping all the trees. so we need a section that spells out more about how natual features should be mapped. 
 

Agreed. At a bare minimum, there should be a bit of positive guidance before any “don’t”s. For example, for forest/grove, “Use to map any forested area.” For the water types, “Use to map any waterway or body of water that either (1) isn’t on the native water layer or (2) is on the native water layer but (a) would otherwise be covered by another area place (park, forest, large campus, or otherwise) or (b) is so significant that the name should be shown in the app. 

But it does deserve its own section, and its own section would be easier to follow. 

 Glad you mentioned that actually Joe. A few years ago I added the quads as “parks” on the Tulane and Loyola campuses, and it adds a nice bit of flair to an otherwise gray blob. Might be nice to also add unnamed park areas to, e.g., the fields of open-air sports stadia and the like. 

 
 

subs5 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 6:12 am Recommend that you give some definition to what a forested area is so that we don't become like Russia and any "grove" of four or more trees is marked with an area for the green.   They actually had people adding groves but then not adding the roads for large inhabited areas.   
  Worth stating that it is for named wooded areas? 

 

It is absolutely not just for named wooded areas. That was the old guidance. Getting away from that restriction and toward a richer, more detailed map is the whole point. 
 

Recommend that you give some definition to what a forested area is so that we don't become like Russia and any "grove" of four or more trees is marked with an area for the green.   They actually had people adding groves but then not adding the roads for large inhabited areas.   
  Worth stating that it is for named wooded areas? 

I like the content. I see some punctuation/consistency items in the text. Do you want to handle those in the proposal, or handle them later. I'm happy to lend a hand.

ojlaw wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 5:12 pm now is the time to make suggestions

 

These are all just style guide fixes, not content. Do you want me to call out each in a list or make the changes directly to your proposed page?