PhantomSoul wrote:Shouldn't POI's be points instead of complex polygons, just from a database perspective? ... A landmark is, by definition, prominent. I think one of the things that has to be decided is whether we want to limit landmarks to physical prominence - in other words, does the thing, say, visually stand out from the vast majority of things around it, perhaps for at least a few miles? ...
Thanks PhanomSoul for starting a great discussion and everyone for their response. This seems rather critical to editing, yet I would rather now wait for an answer from Waze to edit anything in this category if we know of certain solutions like the ones earlier in this post about small landmarks as having POI value at airports. I deleted the Albuquerque Sunport because of this reason and put it over the terminal building.
I like the distinction between visual and social prominence... where social might have to do with tourist attractions, churches, etc. There's also the difference between actual land-area of an item and the key entrance point. For instance, one may map a golf course as a means to show spatial reference in the map, obstacles, etc., but that doesn't lead you to the club house. So, if this large golf course object or objects is named the course name, will POI search bring you to the wrong place? Sure could, it seems from this discussion.
If landmarks are small enough, they don't show on the client and can be POI's right? There are now a bunch of these as new gas stations all over the map from the recent automated process.
This is a community based crowd-sourced application right? So why wait for a response from Waze if none comes. If you choose a standard and the map is edited with more data, won't the app follow? Just curious I guess. If we all used a certain sized small landmark as a POI and the right types or agree upon use of something like "other," wouldn't that suffice?