[USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

[ img ] This is the place to discuss issues that are relevant for locations in the US. For any other discussions, please use the main forums.

Moderator: MapSir

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby CrackedLCD » Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:55 am

daknife wrote:Insta-cares also serve the same public service as Hospitals, i.e. somewhere to go when you get hurt. As I said, this needs discussion. And Hospitals are also (at least where I live) all run by private corporations, how are we not advertising for them?


How about a compromise, and we only landmark facilities with 24 hour care? That would eliminate most of the little places, and most of the 24 hour urgent care type places tend to be a little more comprehensive in what they offer versus every run of the mill doc-in-the-box.
CrackedLCD
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 426
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 12:37 am
Location: LA (Lower Alabama)
Has thanked: 97 times
Been thanked: 63 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby jasonh300 » Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:25 am

pjlasl wrote:I wish there was a more universal acceptance to editing. This is a good start if accepted by more peeps

My pet peeve is editors marking all drive ways in neighborhoods. Or every parking lot road possible in a lot ...


Please report editors who do that sort of thing. Compliance with the Wiki guidelines is not optional.
jasonh300
 
Posts: 7568
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:26 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA, USA
Has thanked: 408 times
Been thanked: 986 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby Daknife » Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:39 pm

Insta-cares also serve the same public service as Hospitals, i.e. somewhere to go when you get hurt. As I said, this needs discussion. And Hospitals are also (at least where I live) all run by private corporations, how are we not advertising for them?
Daknife
Waze Mentor
Waze Mentor
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:03 pm
Location: Riverdale, Utah
Has thanked: 456 times
Been thanked: 229 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby jasonh300 » Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:37 pm

daknife wrote:On hospitals/clinics, I think we need to discuss what level is allowed. Do we accept all medical facilities? Is it limited to just Hospitals? Or are Insta-care's allowed/accepted. I think this field needs a bit more clarification because I don't think we want every Dr's Office marked, but can see the need for more than just Hospitals, particularly with Insta-care/remote ER type facilities.


Think Hospitals as a public service. There's probably an official list somewhere. I'll see if I can find something.

Clinics, doctor's offices, standalone urgent cares, etc. are private businesses for whom we shouldn't be providing free advertising.
jasonh300
 
Posts: 7568
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:26 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA, USA
Has thanked: 408 times
Been thanked: 986 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby jasonh300 » Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:30 pm

jemay wrote:
2.6 Stadium / Sports Facility - Mapped as building shape, adjacent parking lots are mapped using Parking Lot Roads.

This one seems to contradicts most of the other items, in regards to "including parking lot(s) in one landmark" and "at the fence line".


Because the shape of a stadium is recognizable, especially when it's round.
jasonh300
 
Posts: 7568
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:26 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA, USA
Has thanked: 408 times
Been thanked: 986 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby Daknife » Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:48 pm

jemay wrote:
2.6 Stadium / Sports Facility - Mapped as building shape, adjacent parking lots are mapped using Parking Lot Roads.

This one seems to contradicts most of the other items, in regards to "including parking lot(s) in one landmark" and "at the fence line".

Ditto.

Actually it was previously explained elsewhere that the Stadiums just look cooler when mapped to the shape. But I don't buy on that argument one bit, especially when it totally contravenes every other large facility landmark instruction. I do accept that if a road (not a parking road but an actual street) cuts between a stadium parking lot and the stadium, that road should not be crossed by the land mark.

I'm still not a big fan of marking Fire depts, city offices or DMV offices (why them and not other commonly visited gov offices like the Dept of Workforce Services). But I can't seem to effectively define my opposition in words (other than for the DMV) so I'll just leave it that I'm not a big fan of the concept.

On hospitals/clinics, I think we need to discuss what level is allowed. Do we accept all medical facilities? Is it limited to just Hospitals? Or are Insta-care's allowed/accepted. I think this field needs a bit more clarification because I don't think we want every Dr's Office marked, but can see the need for more than just Hospitals, particularly with Insta-care/remote ER type facilities.

Also I have a couple larger military bases that are marked with landmarks because there are not always road segments to be named at the full reaches of the bases, and there are areas where the border between the neighboring cities and base zig and zag a bit leaving the city layer polygon size and shape to be defined inaccurately. By using a Landmark it allows us to set the exact boundaries.

I have made landmarks with the Danger Zone code for some areas that were just put off limits to target shooting this last year because idiots were not checking their backstop and were firing towards some remote farm houses. The BLM declared the no shooting zones and I mapped them in with the Danger Zone type.

A suggestion for the Interchange landmarks, such landmarks don't always show up in the client (I've verified this) and for a couple remote interchanges I put the exit number (ex: Exit 95) in the city label for the overpass segment (and that segment only). I did it as an experiment and I like how it looked on the client. It's just a suggestion, it would only work for rural areas on interchanges that were not adjacent to a city or connected to a State or US hwy. I like the change on the Religious Site verbiage, allowing for slightly more liberal use than the prior wording which was basically "Unless the Vatican or something similar moves to the US, NO." The wording now suggested does allow for locally significant locations such as a unique historical Hindu Temple or a Hare Krishna Temple or an LDS Temple (very significant in Utah, and in many other states as well.) But maintains the instruction that regular houses of worship are not to be mapped.

And I've gone with having my Utah editors mark Golf Courses as Parks to denote them with green. Others disagree with marking golf courses because many are private, but at least around where I am most are actually publicly owned and most people really can't tell the difference. I and at least a couple of my local editors like the park category because of the way they appear green on the client. And no I don't golf so it's not an interest in being able to plan my next 9 or 18 holes.

Water: I've allowed one editor who wanted to landmark every drop of water on the map to put in a major river that is not appearing on the water layer for much of it's length as it runs through our most populous valley. But after spending much time deleting many, many, many water landmarks I'm not opposed to making this rule a blanket NO until the water layer issue is worked out with Waze.
Daknife
Waze Mentor
Waze Mentor
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:03 pm
Location: Riverdale, Utah
Has thanked: 456 times
Been thanked: 229 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby CrackedLCD » Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:50 pm

What's the reasoning for mapping malls, hospitals and the like to include the parking lots? Unless the landmark suppresses traffic reports and problems I don't really see the purpose, at least from an aesthetics point of view. I've found that sensible parking lot road mapping plus the outline of the mall or other major building looks better on the map instead one big blog of landmark with roads inside it.
CrackedLCD
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 426
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 12:37 am
Location: LA (Lower Alabama)
Has thanked: 97 times
Been thanked: 63 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby jemay » Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:56 pm

2.6 Stadium / Sports Facility - Mapped as building shape, adjacent parking lots are mapped using Parking Lot Roads.

This one seems to contradicts most of the other items, in regards to "including parking lot(s) in one landmark" and "at the fence line".
jemay
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 1977
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:26 am
Location: US South West - Lakewood, CA
Has thanked: 620 times
Been thanked: 901 times

[USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby pjlasl » Sat Feb 02, 2013 12:15 am

I agree with Rottie about the tiny lots....I don't like mapping them. If I see them ( ie around a restaurant ) I remove them. If the MPs show in gas lots I place a gas staiont landmark.

But there should be a better what to deal with the MPs for small lots.


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk
pjlasl
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: Weatherford, TX
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 110 times

[USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby pjlasl » Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:02 am

Sure thing. From what I have seen, those parking lot roads/private roads get abused in commercial areas quite a bit...you should not have roads going around McDonalds ...


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk
pjlasl
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: Weatherford, TX
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 110 times

PreviousNext

Return to United States

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users