[USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Image 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: delilush

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.
Image
AM in Utah; CM USA
Utah Forum: Utah Forum
Samsung Galaxy S4 running 4.4 KitKat on Sprint
Daknife
Waze Mentor
Waze Mentor
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:03 pm
Location: Riverdale, Utah
Has thanked: 455 times
Been thanked: 229 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby CrackedLCD » Sat Feb 02, 2013 10:33 am

txemt wrote:I think a LOT of these are imported from the base map. I've deleted a TON of them that have "Admin" as the last editor with an edit date of 2009, meaning they've been imported from the basemap.


There's a ton of these that were imported from the base map in the next county over from me, and I've taken to deleting them when they lead to too much clutter or are inaccurate. But I've found that I have no real choice but to map parking lot roads in fast food places from time to time because they generate a crapload of error reports.
~CrackedLCD
AM for Baldwin-Mobile Cos., AL // Grenada-LeFlore-Carroll Cos., MS // Escambia-Santa Rosa Cos., FL // CM for the USA

Moto Droid Turbo (Android 5.1) on Verizon Wireless
Image
CrackedLCD
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 426
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 12:37 am
Location: LA (Lower Alabama)
Has thanked: 96 times
Been thanked: 63 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby CrackedLCD » Sat Feb 02, 2013 10:31 am

dmiller1984 wrote:I agree that hospitals with 24-hour care is a good rule for mapping hospitals. It goes along with the reason for mapping police and fire departments in that it is a place you can get help if you're in trouble.

2.10 Camp site / RV Park - Not Mapped. Handled by POI Search.


I mentioned this in the original thread, but I think it got overlooked in the scope of a larger discussion. What about mapping camp sites like we do beaches by marking them as parks? Camp sites are many times part of a park anyway and you can't always rely on a POI search to find a campsite.


I assume you're referring to free public camping sites, or sites within a state park with a small fee? I could see doing that, but commercial operations would fall under the 'no business landmarks' rule, I reckon.
~CrackedLCD
AM for Baldwin-Mobile Cos., AL // Grenada-LeFlore-Carroll Cos., MS // Escambia-Santa Rosa Cos., FL // CM for the USA

Moto Droid Turbo (Android 5.1) on Verizon Wireless
Image
CrackedLCD
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 426
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 12:37 am
Location: LA (Lower Alabama)
Has thanked: 96 times
Been thanked: 63 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby CrackedLCD » Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:56 am

I certainly didn't mean to spread misinformation and consider myself schooled on this now. If the wiki is wrong, though, it's possibly been wrong for as long as I've been a member (about 5 months) because that's how it was when I read through after I first got editing privileges.

It's a little OT but I'm wary of using 4sq for place data info. I'm a superuser over there and cleanup is an ongoing thing since people can literally create any venue anywhere, with any venue type they choose. It explains why the |P| icons appear in so many random places. Oh well, something else for me to work on. ;)
~CrackedLCD
AM for Baldwin-Mobile Cos., AL // Grenada-LeFlore-Carroll Cos., MS // Escambia-Santa Rosa Cos., FL // CM for the USA

Moto Droid Turbo (Android 5.1) on Verizon Wireless
Image
CrackedLCD
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 426
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 12:37 am
Location: LA (Lower Alabama)
Has thanked: 96 times
Been thanked: 63 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby CrackedLCD » Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:06 am

pjlasl wrote: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 ...


Well yes, you should, if it serves to suppress problem reports. This will be especially important if Waze globally implements the landmark guideline from the OP that states that we should only use the parking lot landmark for municipal & pay lots.

Before this landmarks discussion heated up and there wasn't much consensus, I did a test in my area and used the parking lot landmark to suppress automatic reports, naming the lots for some of the businesses they covered. It did suppress traffic reports but it cluttered the maps a bit. I'm going to do a bit of editing and convert some of those to parking lot roads so my area falls more in line with these guidelines. I know they're not set in stone yet but this is a good time to get my area into shape.
~CrackedLCD
AM for Baldwin-Mobile Cos., AL // Grenada-LeFlore-Carroll Cos., MS // Escambia-Santa Rosa Cos., FL // CM for the USA

Moto Droid Turbo (Android 5.1) on Verizon Wireless
Image
CrackedLCD
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 426
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 12:37 am
Location: LA (Lower Alabama)
Has thanked: 96 times
Been thanked: 63 times

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
AM for Baldwin-Mobile Cos., AL // Grenada-LeFlore-Carroll Cos., MS // Escambia-Santa Rosa Cos., FL // CM for the USA

Moto Droid Turbo (Android 5.1) on Verizon Wireless
Image
CrackedLCD
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 426
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 12:37 am
Location: LA (Lower Alabama)
Has thanked: 96 times
Been thanked: 63 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
AM for Baldwin-Mobile Cos., AL // Grenada-LeFlore-Carroll Cos., MS // Escambia-Santa Rosa Cos., FL // CM for the USA

Moto Droid Turbo (Android 5.1) on Verizon Wireless
Image
CrackedLCD
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 426
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 12:37 am
Location: LA (Lower Alabama)
Has thanked: 96 times
Been thanked: 63 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby bgodette » Fri Feb 15, 2013 4:15 pm

Even though this is locked I feel the need to comment on the argument of "if Waze didn't want X on the map why is there a type for X".

All of the road Types and landmark Types exist because they are the types used in the TIGER data set that Waze imported for NA. They exist because they're in the other data sets, not from any intentional desire by Waze to have those types/objects and has since gone through at least one Type reduction/consolidation that I know of.
ImageImage
bgodette
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 3437
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denver, CO
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 538 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby AndyPoms » Thu Feb 07, 2013 7:51 am

Alright, it's been a week and the conversation has departed significantly from
AndyPoms wrote:PLEASE keep your comments to specific guidelines and leave the more general discussion (i.e. should landmarks snap to roads) for a later discussion.

So, I'm going to lock this up for now. It's going to take me a few days to sort through the posts here (I've kept my eye on things, but have had some stuff going on that I'm dealing with) and look at any potential changes that need to be made and talk them over with some people, and then hopefully we have the guidelines.



vectorspace wrote:I thought another operational model of Waze was to let every Wazer edit the map. That massive number of editors will never read your policy not to mention the Wiki, and if we're lucky, maybe they will watch the cool training videos.

So... until the policy the Champs are considering is integrated into the operational editing of every user, then this makes little difference at all.
Part of your job as an AM/CM is to
http://www.waze.com/wiki/index.php/Area_Manager wrote: Act as a mentor to other editors, offering advice in both the forums and when you see improper edits on the map.
That means you should be talking with new editors, pointing them to the wiki, and trying to educate them in the correct way of doing things. It is also your job to remove bad edits from the map (usually after trying to point the user to the various guidelines & trying get the user to fix it themselves).
Image
Waze Champ & Forum Moderator
USA Country Manager
Senior Area Manager: State of Connecticut
Wiki: Editing | Best Practices | FAQ
AndyPoms
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
 
Posts: 7223
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:34 pm
Location: Hartford, CT
Has thanked: 129 times
Been thanked: 1330 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby AndyPoms » Mon Feb 04, 2013 7:55 am

vectorspace wrote:Oh yea... here is another landmark item that I think might have value in the Wiki and plolicy around landmarks.

When I started editing, I noticed a lot of the base map items, like a cemetery or a golf course (they were already in there) had boundaries that went directly to roads. That is, the edge of the landmark was aligned with a road exactly.

I wondered why until I tried to make a landmark like that for a whole city block (I think a fairground or something like that) and realized that the landmarks snap to roads at a certain level or distance from your cursor to a road. I guessed this was causing it when some early map titans were making the universe.

At the time I was perusing the forums and found that some people were really into how meticulous their edits were both in roads and landmarks. Some people were amazingly AR in how well things looked and had nodes on landmarks that could have zoomed into the inch-level for accuracy. This seemed kind of a waste of time and bytes in a Waze database when everything was going to be rendered to an iPhone screen or something a bit larger.

In any case, I decided I didn't like the way that landmarks that snapped to roads looked on the client (somewhat confusing without a gap), and would purposefully set the landmark a short distance from the road so it was not on the road.

It would be great if the Champs would address this editing approach in whatever they write up.

Regards,
Vectorspace


This is covered in the first post:
AndyPoms wrote:There are also a few places that refer to ongoing discussions, this refers to the fact that the Waze Champs are currently working with the Waze Staff to sort out some misconceptions about landmarks (snapping to roads, suppression of various reports, etc) and will also be creating a page that better addresses the Theory of Operation behind Landmarks shortly.

PLEASE keep your comments to specific guidelines and leave the more general discussion (i.e. should landmarks snap to roads) for a later discussion.
Image
Waze Champ & Forum Moderator
USA Country Manager
Senior Area Manager: State of Connecticut
Wiki: Editing | Best Practices | FAQ
AndyPoms
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
 
Posts: 7223
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:34 pm
Location: Hartford, CT
Has thanked: 129 times
Been thanked: 1330 times

PreviousNext

Return to United States

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users