That's why I labeled it "USA" and not "NA"... There will always be exceptions to the rules, and this would be a great place to put - "before you map it, make sure it isn't already in the app as many waterways already are"mapcat wrote:I agree with most of what you've included. AFAIK the inaccessible water layer exists only in the USA, so anywhere else (including Canada) water features do need to be mapped. Some features are missing in the USA also, so there's nothing wrong with adding some more where useful.
I was refering to this series of posts (starting at the bottom of page 1 in this topic)mapcat wrote:Regarding parks, what do you mean by "as long as it's not too big where it interferes with other landmarks/roads"? Every park will have some roads in it. National Parks absolutely should be mapped, regardless of size. They're destinations.
shawndoc wrote:I have a question. How should national forest land be covered? Currently, its one GIGANTIC landmark in the client. The problem I'm running into, is there are numerous cities within this gigantic landmark. And its impossible for me to select any existing landmarks, as any time I try to click on one, the National Forest landmark is selected instead. Do we really need landmarks that cover hundreds of square miles of mountain land, including all forest, roads, etc?daknife wrote:I'd say National Forest should NOT be landmarked, A National Park or Monument yes but not a forest. Besides how are they accounting for private land mixed in with the National Forest? Well based on your complaint about towns inside the "landmark" not at all, but that is an issue. I vote to delete such a landmark.
Gas Stations do suppress traffic from what I've seen... and both suppress problem reports (but for parking lots, would parking lot roads be a better option...mapcat wrote:Parking lot landmarks suppress traffic, and possibly gas stations, but I don't think any others do.
Good idea for the general rules section... Minimum size visible...mapcat wrote:Some of the others you say should be mapped (police station, clinic) may be so small that they will never show up, so it may not matter whether or not they're mapped.
I really want to see how shields are handled before deciding on this one... I did a few test ones here in CT, and it seems to work - you get one name for the bridge, it's smaller than the road name font (see screenshot below)...mapcat wrote:I don't think bridges (or tunnels) should be mapped as landmarks. Instead, the street name should be switched from the highway number to the name of the bridge.
AndyPoms wrote:What are your thoughts on which parking lots to map & how to map them? We need to have a discussion to figure this stuff out...
CrackedLCD wrote:Personally I would like to see the parking lots mapped only over parking areas, and a separate landmark could be drawn for shopping malls or other nearby large buildings. I'm not sure how it'd look on the map, though.
jasonh300 wrote:CrackedLCD wrote:Personally I would like to see the parking lots mapped only over parking areas, and a separate landmark could be drawn for shopping malls or other nearby large buildings. I'm not sure how it'd look on the map, though.
Check out Edgewater Mall in Biloxi, MS. I drew in the mall separately from the parking lot. Waste of time. There's no obvious difference on the client.
I could've just drawn one large landmark around the perimeter, set it as Parking Lot, and named it Edgewater Mall and it would have have the same effect.
https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=4&lat ... TTTFTTTTFT
CrackedLCD wrote:In that case, why should we even label malls and other big landmarks anything other than parking lot, if they all look the same?
scruffy151 wrote:CrackedLCD wrote:In that case, why should we even label malls and other big landmarks anything other than parking lot, if they all look the same?
Now that parking lot roads are fixed I don't use parking lot landmarks anymore. You can add in extra roads in cases where a landmark may have been needed before.
1.10 Bridge - Bridges can have names other than the name of the road, so maybe, leaning towards yes for major ones - certainly not every bridge. (i.e. George Washington Bridge in NYC - yes, Golden Gate Bridge in CA - yes, the bridge that takes Main St over the Railroad Tracks - no)
1.11 Tunnel - Tunnels can have names other than the name of the road, so maybe, leaning towards yes for major ones - certainly not every tunnel.
WeeeZer14 wrote:For bridges, at first I was thinking I liked the landmark idea, BUT then I thought about traffic/accident reports. Seeing something pop up saying there is a jam on the George Washington Bridge is probably more useful than seeing I-95 as the location.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]