[New Page Proposal] Places

[qwaletee]

How about "DIsplay type," "Class," or "Visibility"?

[qwaletee]

You cannot have two identically named Area Places that overlap, otherwise saving throws an error in WME. I am not saying that is bad, it just is. Some WIKI page might want to document that.

I have verification from Ohad that this error is on purpose. I can't think of why we would need overlapping Places with the exact same name.

I can imagine two generically-named adjacent places, which could easily ACCIDENTALLY overlap a bit, especially if they are largish. For example, say there are two municipal/county parklands across the road from each other with very uneven outlines. Similarly, if they are really named the same (and are probably a single park), but it has been split because they are in different municipalities.

Technically, they should at most abut, and not overlap. But do we really want to drive an editor bonkers in case it does? Especially since the error message provides no clue?

Incidentally, the problem does not exist if the names are blank.

[qwaletee]

vectorspace,

I agree with you in principle BUT...

1) I doubt that the lack of point rendering will last long. I suspect there's going to be a client app overhaul that will accommodate point places. The current app probably can't render points well, so Waze has elected not to display them for now. (Alternatively, the current app could display them, and the editor and database can work with them, but the search and app query mechanisms are trailing.)

2) While local standards should prevail where possible,
2a) We don't want to get into edit wars over whether a particular place should be off the database, on as an area, or on as a point
2b) There does need to be some default guidance in the absence of mature local standards

3) It also makes sense to "encourage" certain types of places to weight towards point or place. This will allow more consistency for the user experience as they drive in different places. This mattered less when Waze was really a local commuting app, but it will become more important as it is used for long distance routing, or routing by people who fly around a lot.

Therefore I propose that:

* Existing landmark guidance should continue until we have more information about how we can expect point and area places to look in a few months and be searchable in a few months

* Add guidance for adding point places that would have been excluded in the old landmark rules

* Modify the above as more information becomes available

* Get broader consent -- not just among champs -- for which POI will usually work better as points and which as areas, and explain the rationale and what would be typical exceptions. This will be the new version of the current "big table," but with additional information, and with the type become a suggested default instead of a rule

* Encourage regional coordinators and area managers to understand the documentation in the final table when it is produced, and to think about how local conditions may warrant a different normalization

* Encourage a process where editors at various levels can input Places that conform to local or country guidance, with a consensus-oriented exception path

[qwaletee]

Re: Principles verus rules, objective and subjective.

In my previous post, I had two bullets about consensus-based exception handling and local usage differences[/b].

These seem to have been misinterpreted as "let's let freedom ring." It does not. It simply means that:

1) Local RULES are still allowed that contradict national rules (or use guidance, principles, whatever in place of "rules"). I'm not advocating that locally, let decisions be entirely ad-hoc.

2) That there be a [i]process to quickly resolve questions about whether an exception for a particular case is acceptable, and how to document the allowance. I don't want it to become a "contact your RC for every case, and rely only on him or her." It could be that, but RCs are overworked as it is. And the exceptions often get undone by editors who "know the rules," but aren't aware of the circumstances that led to a change in the one instance.

The competing liquor stores example still would not pass here. There is still a rule that normally prohibits the second liquor store, and an appeal would probably lose consensus. If it gained consensus, then so be it. If we ever get an area with a ton of roques contravening the rules and building their own bad consensus, including the RC, then I'm sure the other champs will hear about it sooner rather than later, and it Will Be Taken Care Of.

[qwaletee]

For front door, I don't think we need any long explanations. Although perhaps it should be "To the front entrance of the building, or whichever entrance would be the logical choice to use for a member of public trying to visit this business (or other entity). If there are multiple entrances that are all equivalent, then the choice is the editor's to make." I'm pretty sure that would cover every situation, other than no identifiable appropriate entrance.

[qwaletee]

Very true -- just be on the lookout for the marked handicap path, if any. Handicap spaces do not necessarily have to be right next to the building, but if they aren't, then there has to be a clear path to a handicap-accessible building entrance. If that path goes over a non-pedestrian roadway, it must be marked with blue stripes.

However, just bear in mind that some buildings have a separate handicap entrance, which is not the main entrance.

[qwaletee]

DwarfLord, there was a discussion months ago about the places guidance. My position was that it was put together in haste, little input from the wider community, and very inflexible.

I love the champs. They put in a lot of effort, and they are to be respected. But this needs input from the entire editing community. And it needs to be based on testing and knowledge, not just a fast opinion, goodness knows we have enough of that. I think we had agreement that input and experience were both needed before issuing concrete official guidance.

I won't get into the details of the inflexibility here, as it was long-drawn out discussion, and I would not do it justice without going over everyone's points.

[qwaletee]

CBenson, I think you overstepped your bounds. Fortunately, I covered my eyes while reading your post, so my retinas are still intact. Please stay out of my retinas in the future.

[ScottZane]

It would seem to me that using whatever wording is found on any signage at the affected locations would be the most appropriate, just as that is what is suggested for naming of freeway ramps, street name signs, etc.

[SeZAKxing]

Is this where I can suggest adding "Auto Parts Store" to "Car Services" ?