CBenson wrote:Without the huge geometry outlines, do the reports use the neighborhoods? In other words, if you just label one segment, do you get the report, "Heavy traffic on I-405 N in Inglewood" or "Heavy traffic on I-40 N in Los Angles?"

No, not unless the traffic happens on the one segment that has been renamed. I guess the ones in Los Angeles are just for the appearance of the name on the map.

You raise a good argument for putting this kind of city detail in. It does make the traffic report more specific if it lists the neighborhood.

However, at what point does it become clutter? For a University or a Military Base, there has to be something...a landmark, or city name are going to be equal in the clutter factor, but if we start doing every neighborhood, the bold lettering starts to cover the map. And that may already be a problem in Los Angeles...I haven't really looked at the client map too much there, other than trying to find specific things. I could see separating the 5 boroughs of New York City...I believe it's actually like that already. But cities like Los Angeles, and even New Orleans have a new official neighborhood name every 6 blocks

WeeeZer14 wrote:

WeeeZer14 wrote:And I think that would be a bit much. NYC is a huge city jammed into a small area and I think it would look cluttered.

Okay, who edited my post instead of replying to it?

I didn't type that last sentence, but I totally agree.

Aw crap. That was me. Can't believe I did that.

CrackedLCD wrote:Waze can control the amount of clutter one sees on the map. In fact there's a "declutter" setting for each visible feature that can be edited in the schema files on your device. I've changed all the colours and line thicknesses to better show up on my AMOLED screen device.

I've noticed that a lot of the landmark names disappear when I zoom out. I don't remember that happening before...this is on the iOS Beta, so that may not be available on all platforms.

Has anyone noticed the slightly different green color of gas station landmarks in WME? I wonder what the change is for, maybe something to do with the landmarks internationally, since Waze uses them in the ROTW for more than just points of reference?

xtago wrote:Maybe for a uni/collage you could do a fence line landamark and use land marks for the buildings so you have a general map of the site overall.

Please don't do that. There's no need for building landmarks within another landmark covering the whole area. Maybe it would be worthwhile to identify an arena/stadium or important museum on the campus, but not every building. The result is a massive landmark with many words scrambled together or appearing at random. Waze can't tell what landmarks are more important than the others, so, as with city names, it just guesses.

I found this...

http://www.waze.com/wiki/index.php/Crea ... a_landmark

So it sounds like maybe I should just map the actual building to avoid anything as this describes.

shawndoc wrote:Also, Waze will only display landmarks that are above a certain size. Your typical restaurant, including parking lot is too small to show up.

...and another thing: complicated shapes get drastically simplified when shown on the client, so mapping the exact contours of a building is a waste of time. Four points is usually enough for most small to medium landmarks.

via mobile

jasonh300 wrote:I could see separating the 5 boroughs of New York City...I believe it's actually like that already. But cities like Los Angeles, and even New Orleans have a new official neighborhood name every 6 blocks

Yes NYC is already separated into the boroughs (mostly). But I bet some would argue for neighborhoods there too (Little Italy, China Town, SoHo, DUMBO, Upper East Side, etc etc.) There are actually 59 official "community districts" in the 5 boroughs.

And I think that would be a bit much. NYC is a huge city jammed into a small area and I think it would look cluttered.

WeeeZer14 wrote:And I think that would be a bit much. NYC is a huge city jammed into a small area and I think it would look cluttered.

Okay, who edited my post instead of replying to it?

I didn't type that last sentence, but I totally agree.