Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Moderator: Unholy

Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby weeezer14 » Mon Sep 24, 2012 2:44 am

ncc1701v wrote:
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.

Would the traffic report appear on the landmark, not the road name?


Report would appear on/attached to the road, therefore having the road named GWB would be more useful than if it was named I-95 with a landmark named GWB. Looking at the map, either way would probably work. But we need to think beyond making the map look nice. So to have an alert pop up or show in the list of events in your area and say the name of the bridge or tunnel, we have to apply that name to the road segment(s).



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
iPhone 5s (AT&T) • iOS 7.0.3 • Waze 3.7.6.0
Image
✰ Mega Driver ✰ Mega Mapper ✰ 1M Points ✰
Country Manager: USA • Regional Coordinator: USA South Atlantic (KY, TN, NC, SC)
Navigation/Routing ExpertForum Moderator
weeezer14
 
Posts: 3761
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 3:27 pm
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA
Has thanked: 46 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby AndyPoms » Mon Sep 24, 2012 6:46 am

ncc1701v wrote:
AndyPoms wrote:
    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.

Would these show up when navigating? I enjoy being a tourist and learning I'm going over the Koscziusko bridge, or the Pulaski bridge, but most of the time wouldn't most navigators just want clear directions to their destination? Do these help with navigation? Would they be seen as clutter?
See Screen Shot Above...
Image
Waze Champ & Forum Moderator
USA Country Manager
Senior Area Manager: State of Connecticut
Wiki: Editing | Best Practices | FAQ
AndyPoms
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 7122
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:34 pm
Location: Hartford, CT
Has thanked: 128 times
Been thanked: 1296 times

Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby gabmtl » Thu Oct 11, 2012 2:57 pm

I still do not know what needs to be be done ...

If I look at the "official" position on landmarks ... http://www.waze.com/wiki/index.php/Crea ... a_landmark I see:
"Creating and Editing a landmark
Some landmark types have the property of suppressing traffic jams, and this may be an unintentional consequence of suppressing traffic jams on adjacent roads and highways. Therefore, best practice when creating or editing landmarks is that the landmarks should not be snapped to roads, or cover roads that are not part of the landmark."

Any new user/editor would see that as an invitation to create all landmarks as they are available from the interface drop down menu for landmark type. That list is extensive, and since a Store/Stall would be a valid choice, as would shopping Centers, however small they may be someone is bound to add them or modify them to suite their understanding of the rules.
We do need better rules.

One question would arises: How accurate the landmark needs to be to the satellite images ?
Any new user would think that the landmark needs to be closer to reality instead of a big blob. We recognize some buildings by their shape so that does makes sense. Some landmarks include the parking lot so it becomes a bigger one, thus more visible on the client. How does that translate to reality ? If the landmark goes beyond the building limits that would mean it will cover some parking roads but that is against the rules (see above). Unless we put in a Parking lot landmark, but then we would have two landmarks that really is hard to read in the client.

If the parking lot is attached to the shopping center, then the landmark should be the shopping center. If the parking is a stand alone one it should stay a parking lot. So this would mean that all landmarks would go beyond the buildings and include nearby parking lots. There are a few shopping malls that have HUGE parking lots so once we go in that area we have no way of knowing how to go out (unless we use common sense). Thus we create parking lot roads.

So, WHO can create the rules ? ...

The client code may wish to use or not the landmarks information, but as the code gets better it could use the information to improve searches, or directions.
gabmtl
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 12:53 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby jasonh300 » Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:09 pm

mtlgab wrote:If the landmark goes beyond the building limits that would mean it will cover some parking roads but that is against the rules (see above).


Parking lot roads are part of the landmark, so that wouldn't apply. I actually put that section into the Wiki after discovering HUNDREDS of sloppy parking lot landmarks that covered the streets surrounding the landmark, making those surrounding streets ignore traffic jams.
Image
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
South-Central Regional Coordinator
(LA/MS/AR...contact karlcr9911 for TX/OK related issues)
U.S. Champ, Global Champ
Waze FAQ ... Best Map Editing Practice
Ask me about Louisiana Editors Chat in Google Hangouts!
jasonh300
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 7571
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:26 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA, USA
Has thanked: 402 times
Been thanked: 970 times

Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby Jpere » Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:51 pm

I'm glad Andy directed me to this discussion, as lately I've been very conflicted with the purpose of Landmarks, and a discussion I've been having with a fellow editor in my area shows how important it is that we get this sorted out. We all saw the post on the Waze blog about the number of editors increasing over the last few months so it is important that we figure this out before everyone starts doing their own thing at a bigger scale. This is worsened by the lack of communication from Waze as to what guidelines we can start following.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, so far I see everyone has different opinions on these changes and this discussion is getting nowhere.

How about we tackle some of the more general issues with landmarks before we start getting lost in the details?

Problem: Should we or should we not add landmarks to the Waze map?
Argument 1: Waze uses POI databases from Bing and other providers when users search for landmarks, making any additions editors make to the map "useless" to the Waze client and the routing algorithms.
Counter-argument 1: Landmarks on the client map server as a reference point to drivers who may be browsing the map or who may have been misguided by Waze directions (I've had this happen to me countless time and it is very frustrating).
Counter-counter-argument 1: Extra work for the editors who should be focused on improved map routing and accuracy instead of having to worry about outdated landmarks, landmarks that are missing, or problems with "X store being on the map, but Y store not being on the map, and they are direct competitors (i.e. CVS vs Walgreens in USA)"
My opinion: No harm is done in adding certain landmarks to the client map. I'm against small, local business (like mom & pop unisex barber, or father & songs general mechanic, etc.), but national chains like Office Depot, Walmart, etc., I think would be fine in being added to the map. I think from a usability perspective this would be a welcomed addition to Wazers. We can manage our areas and see when users are adding the "small businesses" and PM the user about the guidelines we will be adding to the wiki.

I think if we can all agree to this we can then move on to listing the only landmarks that should be on the map. For the sake of this argument, though, let's get this problem out of the way first.

What other arguments for or against are there for including landmarks apart from the ones I listed above? Also, please include your opinion to that problem only so we can get an idea which argument is "winning."
Jpere
 
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 3:52 am
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 8 times

Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby rbthomp76 » Sat Oct 13, 2012 11:56 pm

I think it would be great if parking lots did not appear in the client. Can we have them on a separate layer? I think they present a better solution than parking lot roads (which can get pretty nasty looking especially along frontage roads).

(I'm very thankful that I haven't needed to use Waze to get out of any parking lots!!!).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
rbthomp76
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 2:49 am
Location: Southern Mississippi
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby paulwelch23 » Sun Oct 14, 2012 12:02 am

rbthomp76 wrote:I think it would be great if parking lots did not appear in the client. Can we have them on a separate layer? I think they present a better solution than parking lot roads (which can get pretty nasty looking especially along frontage roads).

(I'm very thankful that I haven't needed to use Waze to get out of any parking lots!!!).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I completely agree with this idea. I think it would just confuse the average user.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Paul M. Welch, PE

Tennessee-based CM, focusing on Middle / East TN and Memphis
Image
paulwelch23
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:54 pm
Location: Baxter, TN / Knoxville, TN
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby jasonh300 » Sun Oct 14, 2012 12:10 am

paulwelch23 wrote:
rbthomp76 wrote:I think it would be great if parking lots did not appear in the client. Can we have them on a separate layer? I think they present a better solution than parking lot roads (which can get pretty nasty looking especially along frontage roads).

(I'm very thankful that I haven't needed to use Waze to get out of any parking lots!!!).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I completely agree with this idea. I think it would just confuse the average user.


I agree also. And the Parking Lot Roads could stand to be a lot dimmer in the client, like the Pedestrian Boardwalks. You can barely see those.
Image
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
South-Central Regional Coordinator
(LA/MS/AR...contact karlcr9911 for TX/OK related issues)
U.S. Champ, Global Champ
Waze FAQ ... Best Map Editing Practice
Ask me about Louisiana Editors Chat in Google Hangouts!
jasonh300
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 7571
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:26 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA, USA
Has thanked: 402 times
Been thanked: 970 times

Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby gabmtl » Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:15 am

@Jpere ... I agree with you, but as you can see, in 3 posts we went off subject.

There are lots of issues that need to be fixed and that need rules.

To get back to the subject. "Landmarks".
I did a few edits and I tested some of them, so here are my observations:
1- Small stores have no visibility on the client (iphone4s) ... minimum size required.
2- The 3D view is much better to see Landmarks in the client.
3- The important point would be for the driver to know there is a Wallmart close by. This would mean that the size of the landmark needs to be as big as possible. This may mean including small parking lots in the landmark.
4- For bigger shopping malls, parking lot roads make sense for main entrance/exits, but the parking lot roads close to the streets need to be at specific distance in the map otherwise user gets "snapped" to the street. Maybe for much bigger one "Parking lot landmark" would make sense as well, with or without parking lot roads. (testing some of that at the moment)
5- Naming of the landmark needs to be small if there are other landmarks near by. I think that at some point we need to keep the landmarks generic ("Library of Old-guy-dead-for-may-year-yet-important" should be only "Library", unless the actual library name is small.)
6- We are missing POI in the client. Once that could be activated the landmarks would be less important. We need to have at least the basic ones (Gas, shopping, police, fire, hospital, pharmacy, auto_repair, and a few others.)
7- It would be of some importance to have many small store merged in the same landmark but with NoName so that the user knows there is something of importance there, without messing up the map.
8- The client is not good enough at the moment to properly display satellite accurate landmarks, so a Blob would do the job just as well.
9- I see many alerts from Waze regarding undefined gas stations. So for these landmarks we need to understand if the Gas Landmark suppresses trafic or if we need to edit Parking lot roads.
10- Editing needs to be fast and easy. At the moment we wave way too many Landmarks type from the editor. The Editor should focus on the minimal work required. Once all of that is defined, then they can add in the bonus ones :)

I did not test everything yet, and I am sure a ton of people have more experience than me so I am willing to adapt as long as it makes sense.
.
gabmtl
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 12:53 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: Wiki page suggestion: Landmarks

Postby HandofMadness » Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:33 am

mtlgab wrote:@Jpere ... I agree with you, but as you can see, in 3 posts we went off subject.

There are lots of issues that need to be fixed and that need rules.

To get back to the subject. "Landmarks".
I did a few edits and I tested some of them, so here are my observations:
1- Small stores have no visibility on the client (iphone4s) ... minimum size required..


From the UK landmark page:
"Landmarks smaller than about 1600m² (40m x 40m) won't appear on the client, so there's no point adding them to the map. (A standard build McDonald's with Drive-thru is approximately 1000m²) "
CM: Thailand CM: USA
Image
HandofMadness
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 1801
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:44 am
Location: Californialand, USA
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 372 times

PreviousNext

Return to Wiki Updates and Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users