olestas wrote:We had an editor, who started cutting the road with bridge and adding segment named "bridge" there...

I actually did that twice in the last last week in my area. One was consistent with local usage, and was needed due to a confusion of streets joining on each side. The other was an "official" but unsigned bridge name. It was needed because otherwise, the bridge above and street below wold have shared a name, and likely got a few drivers lost

Otherwise, I agree, caling out bridges is overkill. Some drivers will complain if you don't, other drivers will complain if you do. Most will have no problem either way.

goimir wrote:

qwaletee wrote: I actually did that twice in the last last week in my area. One was consistent with local usage, and was needed due to a confusion of streets joining on each side. The other was an "official" but unsigned bridge name. It was needed because otherwise, the bridge above and street below wold have shared a name, and likely got a few drivers lost

Otherwise, I agree, caling out bridges is overkill. Some drivers will complain if you don't, other drivers will complain if you do. Most will have no problem either way.

That's the custom in Pittsburgh. Roads don't usually keep the same name over bridges (s 10th str does, but none others do), and they're all either named or called "[name of street] bridge"

The only case I know of in Pittsburgh where the disambiguation actually does something is 31st street, where 31st actually continues underneath the 31st street bridge. But then again, this is a town where US Truck 19 is concurrent with itself for a few hundred yards.

Sent from my SGH-I927 using Tapatalk

Truck 19 Links?

qwaletee wrote:

olestas wrote:We had an editor, who started cutting the road with bridge and adding segment named "bridge" there...

I actually did that twice in the last last week in my area. One was consistent with local usage, and was needed due to a confusion of streets joining on each side. The other was an "official" but unsigned bridge name. It was needed because otherwise, the bridge above and street below wold have shared a name, and likely got a few drivers lost

Otherwise, I agree, caling out bridges is overkill. Some drivers will complain if you don't, other drivers will complain if you do. Most will have no problem either way.

I've gotten an out of band request to clarify what I meant here. I am pointing out that there are some situations where you may want to change the naming of a bridge segment so that routing is clearer, but otherwise, it usually is not worth it. In my case, I had two such situations.

1) https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=6&lat ... s=63424675
Bridge is part of Greenpoint Ave, which spans the Newton Creek between Queens and Brooklyn. The official name of the bridge is J J Byrne Memorial Bridge, but it isn't signed (or at leats not very visibly), and noboyd calls it that -- they call it Greenpoint Ave or Greenpoint Ave Bridge. Segment was previously called Greenpoint Ave, which was OK by itself. The problem is that there was a Greenpoint Ave that only ran to the eastern bank before there was a bridge, and so it continues to exist, below the bridge on each side, and is still called Greenpoint Ave. This can cause hard to follow routing instructions, so I named the starting segment of the eastern side of the bridge with the official naming. Anyone coming form the preceding segments on that side will not be confused, because it is obviously a bridge (the roadway rises steeply), and there will be no confusion with the roadways to the side anymore, especially since I also renamed THOSE Greenpoint Ave Outer Road, a naming convention used in many places in Waze for NYC.


2) https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=6&lat ... s=33539612
The bridge is also officially named as I entered into Waze, and is also not signed. The adjacent segments make it confusing. Grand St and Metropolitan Ave come together in order to cross the bridge. The bridge itself is inline with Grand St, and Metropolitan dog-legs its way into a sport of concurrency with Grand over the bridge. Traffic to Grand in one direction is briefly diverted to Metropolitan, because Gran becomes one way to prevent multiple lane crossovers. To leave it without the word bridge in the name could cause confusion because of the twisty way the roads join. If you go through all the use cases for driving the bridge, it is best named with a unique name for the bridge segment.

So the above two cases point to sometimes using a name change when a stretch of road runs over a bridge. In both cases, it happens to follow official naming, which is almost irrelevant. I would have put bridge in there even if it was not the official name, to avoid confusing instructions to drivers.

But in most cases, this wouldn't be true. Unless the bridge segment is noticeably signed, there's no reason at all to change the name of the segments over the bridge, and even if it is signed, it may add no benefit.

bz2012 wrote:Maybe its the 101.3 fever I am running right now, but this user report has me lost.

bz2012(5) on March 24, 2014
Please provide more details so we can investigate the "General error" you reported. Volunteer map editors only fix map problem. We don't see what you see on your screen. We only see where you were located when you started your report and a short segment of the WAZE recommended route and a short segment of the route taken.
To test the routing, we need to know the approximate start and end points of your route.
Your routing options are important. Do you Avoid toll roads? Avoid major highways? Dirt roads allow/don't allow/avoid long ones?
Have you selected 'fastest route' or 'shortest route'?
Thank you for the report and all the WAZE you help.
if no response within 7 days, this report will be closed as 'solved'.
Reporter on March 26, 2014
Manuel Arechar
bz2012(5) on March 26, 2014
Afraid that doesn't answer my question about the problem report.
Reporter on March 27, 2014
Manuel Arechar fhjs
bz2012(5) on March 27, 2014
Who or What is a "Manuel Arechar"? Is it a person, place or a thing? What is fhjs? Google does not find either the name or that 4 letter combination.
Exactly what would you like for us to do?
bz2012(5) on March 27, 2014
We can't fix it unless we know what you want us to fix.
Reporter on March 27, 2014
Jury
Reporter on March 27, 2014
Los Hurd

He's toying with you. Be nice and just close the report. Don't threaten to wipe his phone remotely.

goimir wrote:

khaytsus wrote:

irowiki wrote:Getting even a basic destination out of people seems to be like pulling teeth sometimes.

I've had conversatations like this:

<Reporter> Didn't take me to the right location
<me> Let me know the exact destination address and I'll see what I can fix here, thanks!
<Reporter> The location I was navigating to
<me> I don't have that information, I can only see about 500 feet around where you were driving
<Reporter> <crickets>
... 4 days later.. Marked Not Identified.

And I've sent reports like:

"This is where this grocery store with an address of 'foo' should be. Not on the other side of the tracks, in a park."

And have gotten responses of "That's nice. Waze uses data from X to set locations and we're not changing it."

…"the map error you reported was fixed by [REDACTED]"

Sent from my SGH-I927 using Tapatalk

I'm probably just brined out on GMM changes, but lately I've been asking drivers if they "want my help in fixing the error in Google Maps." I get a response rate of something like 15%.

My own changes at GMM get published immediately about half the time. The rest of the time, they sit for a week and more often than not get rejected. To which I sometimes contest.

Interestingly, when I get someone to engage, I usually can't see their changes, and so I can't review them myself.

Yeah, I wouldn't want to cut into my spare tire, but my wife keeps making that feature request.

ctpoole wrote:
Years ago, back before the big savings and loan crash, all Banks in Texas were "stand alone", that is there could be no branches, so the big multi-state, multi-branch type banks were illegal in Texas.

Not quite. Interstate banking was prohibited. But there was nothing preventing a Texas-based bank form having many in-state branches. Chase's network in Texas came about because of the buyout of Texas Commerce, shortly after the repeal of the rule. Texas Commerce had an extensive branch network for many years, making it an attractive target as soon as the restriction was lifted.

bz2012 wrote:Auto correct strikes again?

Update Request (3459625): Wrong driving direction
tractor supply isn't loved where y'all have it
Submitted 3 days ago

It must be terrible to be an unloved tractor supply.

Well, I'm at least glad that we have love somewhere.

pjlasl wrote:Waze doing what Waze does best http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/04/08/gebypa5e.jpg

Sounds like #WazeWin in Fort Worth

deeggo wrote:Isn't that some Malaysian plane everyone is looking for?

Too soon