[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 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.
AndyPoms
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 7161
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:34 pm
Location: Hartford, CT
Has thanked: 129 times
Been thanked: 1314 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby vectorspace » Mon Feb 04, 2013 2:42 am

txemt wrote:
vectorspace wrote:
I guess I might be a different type of user then, because I have kept Waze on when walking around the University and other locations when I have needed to navigate in a dense area that required foot traffic. I don't know if that is important, but wanted to share my experience.


You're giving false traffic data by doing that.


Me and how many others? (I really don't do it that much.) I have seen GPS traces all over campus and other areas without roads. I think we either have to accept that will occur or have Wazer police or get Waze to insert algorithms for this.

If this is really an issue, then why are there "walking trails" and "pedestrian boardwalks" as road types in Waze now? I have some new editors people that purposefully edit these into the map because they like to use Waze for biking and walking. Just wondering...
vectorspace
 
Posts: 1183
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:05 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Has thanked: 173 times
Been thanked: 420 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby vectorspace » Mon Feb 04, 2013 2:39 am

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
vectorspace
 
Posts: 1183
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:05 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Has thanked: 173 times
Been thanked: 420 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby txemt » Mon Feb 04, 2013 2:37 am

vectorspace wrote:
I guess I might be a different type of user then, because I have kept Waze on when walking around the University and other locations when I have needed to navigate in a dense area that required foot traffic. I don't know if that is important, but wanted to share my experience.


You're giving false traffic data by doing that.
txemt
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 4764
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:03 pm
Location: 26.1901 80.3659
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 1034 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby vectorspace » Mon Feb 04, 2013 2:32 am

jasonh300 wrote:Well, I can knock out a portion of vectorspace's objections in one easy sentence: Private businesses are not to be mapped because Waze's business model is to sell advertising to businesses that want to be mapped.

This is not a matter for debate.

This eliminates Walmarts, private golf courses, restaurants, bars, coffee shops, hotels, motels, private campsites and RV parks, pharmacies, etc.


Hi Jason300 -- Yea--this is one point I wanted to put into my comment, but forgot. I realize that Waze has a business model to advertise. I have seen Taco Bell, Dunkin Donuts, etc. I wonder though if it is so black and white. Has there been policy provided by Waze on this topic? The very fact that they include "store" and related types in their landmarks seems to contradict this. Please point me to that policy statement from Waze because placing businesses such as the ones I mentioned on Waze is not may life goal or my most enjoyable time editing. I got together with some local editors in my region and discussed what was important. We tried this to see if it helped.

I thought that the Champs asked for debate, or at least discussion. I'm not here to argue the point, just offer honest and open comments.

With regard to Waze's business model, I did think about that. I saw that the labeled pin marks for paying businesses were significantly different than flat landmarks which are only seen when up close. The Waze product of the business pins can be seen much easier and further distant, so value is still offered. So, I thought it was not competing, but this is Waze's product so knowing what to do and not do is a good thing. Problem is that the many many editors they seek don't care as much about it as we do and will do what they want.
vectorspace
 
Posts: 1183
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:05 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Has thanked: 173 times
Been thanked: 420 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby vectorspace » Mon Feb 04, 2013 2:25 am

txemt wrote:I have to disagree with this part of your argument for this reason. A lot of universities put their parking lots away from the other buildings on campus, thus forcing the student to walk or catch a shuttle. Since Waze is used for driving purposes, I would assume the Wazer turns Waze off (or stops using it) once they get to the parking lot to park their car, thus they have no need to use Waze to get to their building for class.


I guess I might be a different type of user then, because I have kept Waze on when walking around the University and other locations when I have needed to navigate in a dense area that required foot traffic. I don't know if that is important, but wanted to share my experience.

txemt wrote:There's some other points your brought up that I disagree with, but I didn't want to pick it all apart right now. With that being said, I'm pretty sure that there's going to be disagreement and agreement among all of us here.


That's cool... pick apart, I am not offended and enjoy the discourse. I just wanted to offer an alternative perspective for the consideration of the Champs. All my comments were intended with respect and understand that there will be different views. I didn't see a lot of discussion on the points. Whatever the eventual policy is, I'll certainly try to follow it!
vectorspace
 
Posts: 1183
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:05 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Has thanked: 173 times
Been thanked: 420 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby timl2k12 » Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:20 am

I should add, we may be doing waze a favor landmarking their promoted businesses because the ones I have seen are not even geolocated properly.
timl2k12
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:22 am
Location: Tampa, Florida USA
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby timl2k12 » Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:17 am

jasonh300 wrote:Well, I can knock out a portion of vectorspace's objections in one easy sentence: Private businesses are not to be mapped because Waze's business model is to sell advertising to businesses that want to be mapped.

This is not a matter for debate.


Is that a quote from Waze TOS? How do you know waze's business model doesn't allow businesses and such to be mapped? Perhaps they have the infrastructure there for future plans that they feel don't conflict with their business model. Let Waze worry about their business model. We editors do not work for or get paid by waze. If they don't want businesses being mapped then they need to put it in their terms of service, or at least remove the option. Editors are users too, not employees of waze. So the matter is very much up for debate, until waze intervenes and provides enforceable guidelines. If it really is against their business model to landmark businesses why would they have the option?
timl2k12
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:22 am
Location: Tampa, Florida USA
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby jasonh300 » Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:03 am

Well, I can knock out a portion of vectorspace's objections in one easy sentence: Private businesses are not to be mapped because Waze's business model is to sell advertising to businesses that want to be mapped.

This is not a matter for debate.

This eliminates Walmarts, private golf courses, restaurants, bars, coffee shops, hotels, motels, private campsites and RV parks, pharmacies, etc.

While pharmacies may seem to be a public necessity, they're still private businesses. If Waze contracts with CVS to put each of their stores on the map, then they'll lose value in their advertising if editors are adding Walgreens and Rite-Aid locations as landmarks. The same goes for just about every commercial interest on the map.

It's for the same reason that Ramada, Taco Bell, and Dunkin Donuts have spent big bucks with Waze to put their hotels and shops on the maps, we can't put Holiday Inns, Del Taco or Tim Hortons on the map for free.
jasonh300
 
Posts: 7567
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:26 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA, USA
Has thanked: 403 times
Been thanked: 978 times

Re: [USA] Landmark Guidelines - Request for Comments

Postby timl2k12 » Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:09 pm

I have read this whole thread and there seems to be little, if any consensus and a lot of conflicting ideas, as well as confusion. Landmarks seem to serve two purposes at odds with each other,
  1. for editors: to suppress Automatic Map Problems (such as this)
  2. for users: to see what is around them, and because of the way the client currently works:
  3. to get to what is around them
Until these three functions are separated I don't see how a consensus can be reached.
timl2k12
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:22 am
Location: Tampa, Florida USA
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 12 times

PreviousNext

Return to United States

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users