Give editors the ability to enter Notes onto User Reports without these going to the reporters themselves.

This will allow us to leave messages for other map editors without the reporter being notified, for example, Please leave open - due to a Waze developer investigation, Please leave open for a pending site survey, etc.

It may also give us the ability to for to use for an internal conversation about the report that the reporter doesn't need to know about.

Yes, I know we have Map Comments, but having the ability to do this directly on the report would make it easier.

July 2020, Waze has three camera types: speed, red light, dummy. It is clear talking to different community leaders that the requirements for specific cameras vary from country to country. Thus, we are asking for the ability to add new camera types per country, with the ability to input into text to speech (TTS), and on/off toggle alert in the app. These could be provided by form, similar to new gas station brands, etc. by a country's leadership.

Alternatively, collect a list of camera types from the communities to create a long list, and allow countries to turn them on/off by country.

Obviously there's a wide range of cameras, and in each jurisdiction some are more important to others. There are also new and emerging camera types, such as dual red light AND speed cameras, and even newly released mobile phone detection cameras which fine users for driving while holding their phone.

I noticed that Waze doesn't approach bilingual countries just like GMM does.
For example, in GMM, we can write multiple names for the same road in 2 different languages and based on the user's current phone language chosen, the map changes accordingly.
Unfortunately that doesn't happen in Waze, we are stuck in 1 language only, even if we add "Alternative" name.

Here in Kuwait, we use both Arabic and English (Even street signs are written in both Arabic and English) , in Google Maps we are having no problems since most of the roads in the map are written in both Arabic and English. But in Waze, it is way different.

This is causing problems since most of the locals here prefer the map in Arabic, but also there are people who use the map in English.

My suggestion is:
In WME, when selecting a segment, we should have at least 2 fields to name the selected segment, there also has to be a drop-down menu to choose the wanted language.
The user's map should display the correct language based on the user's language settings in his/her phone.

This is slightly outside the scope of WME Beta, but in general about our ability to provide a better service for end users.

Allow users to reply to URs via email. Many support systems allow this, and in most cases, the process is fairly simple. The process might be as follows:

• User submits a request/issue from the app while they drive
• We (editors) get a pin on the map with submitted details as before
• User gets an email with a unique response email address (something like 8766123133@requests.waze.com)
• User gets instructions on how to view the map issue they submitted
• User gets instructions on how to provide more details (ie, from the app, or reply via email)
• If user replies via email, the email goes to a processing application and the details are added to the UR
• If user replies via app, they get an option to approve the full details of the journey to volunteers (start/end, exact details entered, route taken, etc)
• Editors now have a higher chance of getting details to support drivers because of email support, and the check box allows drivers to approve exposing extra details to volunteers.

Obviously the exposing extra details to volunteers will probably have to go through some legal process, but as we (as editors) often ask for details about the driver's routes anyway, I'm not sure there really is a difference.

The really important bit here is the reply via email. With it pinned to a sub-domain of waze.com (such as requests.waze.com) a processing application can append the replies to existing requests (based on the part in front of the @). This is a pretty common practice on many support ticketing systems, and I'm sure we'd get a much higher response rate on user request follow-ups.

Cheers
Jonathan

By: jangliss
Link to original suggestion: https://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1525&t=306988

It would be really great if we could add closures to segments just after creating them. Currently that's not possible. In this case, once the segments are built into the map, the closures would be added to them automatically

Why?

Sometimes city administrations make few changes in the traffic by creating new roads. The problem is that most of the times (at least where I live) we don't know exactly when those roads will be released. In addition, map build may delay.

So, as soon as we know a new road will be built, we can create it on WME and add a closure after that. Once the road is released, we can delete the closure.

by quantumjedi
Link to original suggestion: https://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1525&t=296229&start=10

As I was informed by staff today that the speed field in RLCs have no effect on the app behavior at all anymore. Furthermore any effects they did have were a bug. "We recently fixed a bug that was triggering the red light cameras' TTS based on the speed field added there. This behavior shouldn't be based on speed, so I highly suggest you create a suggestion on UserVoice for removing this field."
Therefore i recommend removing the speed field from red light cameras entirely in WME. There is already a separate discussion and work being done on the possibility of having combination speed/red light cams added in the future, this suggestion is for exclusive red light cameras.

Editors must sometimes reject Places and Place updates submitted from the app. But WME provides no means to communicate WHY. This is discouraging for both editors and submitters.

WME should allow editors to select from a list of the most common reasons for rejecting Places or Place Updates in order to inform app users how to improve their Place suggestions. An example list:

• Photos must provide clear exterior orientation for drivers
• Descriptions must meet Waze community guidelines
• Could not verify deletion, renaming, or other significant change
• Non-residential Places must be meaningful to the general public
• Gas prices cannot be moderated, they can only be entered via the app

To branch off the discussion from the WME release topic:

RichardPyne כתב:
I would find GPS points much more useful if they were color coded by age rather than direction. Th arrows provide useful direction, but in areas where traffic patterns are changing due to construction, knowing the age of the trace would be far more useful.

dchary2418 כתב:
It could help if the GPS traces were the same original color, but shaded darker for older data.

Glodenox כתב:
I'd be all for somehow showing the age of the GPS points. Especially the more recent data seems of interest to me. Something like "last 7 days", "last 30 days" or "older" would work great as brackets for colouring, I think.

The issue with that is probably that it would allow you to track certain users in areas with not as many users. With no indication of age, this is a lot harder to do right now. But in theory this could be taken into account by not showing the age when there is little data.

When adding Places, especially outdoor places (such as parks, playgrounds, beaches, etc), there are often posted hours saying the Place is open only sunrise to sunset, or conversely that the Place is closed sunset to sunrise. Unfortunately, the existing Place hours interface doesn't allow for these kinds of hours, only HH:mm times. As sunrise and sunset times change constantly, and in some places drastically due to orbital motion of the earth and time changes due to daylight savings times, it is impractical to estimate open/closing times using HH:mm formats.

It would be beneficial to both app users and map editors to allow for the app to determine/reference local sunset/sunrise times (which it already does for dark/light app modes) and use this to mark the venues as open/closed.

Possible mock-up of feature in WME:
https://i.imgur.com/TYAa7vn.png

Currently, Junction Boxes do not have a controllable lock level. From the look of it, the lock level displayed is the minimum level for the country that can edit a JB. For example, in the UK only L5+ editors can edit JBs, so all JBs show auto(5) in WME.

With various changes that HQ are making into WME and the app, it seems to me that they expect a massive increase in JBs over time. U-turn prevention, junction modification for Falcon are just some of the things for which the answer often seems to be "use a JB".

I'm not disagreeing with the increased use of JBs. But some of them in the UK are attached to very complex motorway junctions (https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=row&lon=0.19921&lat=51.87156&zoom=5) which we would definitely want to stay out of reach of junior editors.

On the other hand, we don't want to prevent junior editors being able to use JBs sensibly in situations where they're needed.

Without individual lock levels on JBs we don't have much choice. In order to protect complex, important JBs we have to lock junior editors out of JB use entirely.

By: iainhouse
link to original suggestion: https://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1525&t=307738

When adding or editing RPP, if there is a conflict with the HN layer (i.e. too far), then the WME issues an error that prevents you from saving your edit. Thus, you cannot add or update this RPP.

To resolve the issue you need to perform the following steps:
1. Update/Remove the address in HN layer
2. Wait for next (successful) map build
3. Add the RPP

This is an annoying procedure that should and can be avoided.

The issue can be handled in one of the following ways:
1. Verify the RPP against the most updated data either in the edited or production HN layer databases.
2. Allow conflicts. Issue a warning but allow to save (rank depended). The same as forced HNs are allowed. Especially that for navigation, exiting RPPs are used before HNs.

The above suggestions or any other solution that will allow immediate RPP editing would be very welcomed.

I prefer option 1, as it also solve the conflict.