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.

User Reports (URs) come in by the truckload. Despite a message from an investigating editor, only 10% of URs will receive a reply. This represents a significant amount of time by editors, particularly senior editors managing large areas, to the manual handling of individual URs. Since 90% of the URs result in the same process, help us streamline and automated it so we can focus our valuable time on productive investigations and edits that will value add to Waze.

I propose an additional tick box under "Follow conversation" that says along the lines "Auto reminder and mark as not identified."

When ticked:

• and a user replies, the auto remind and close is disactivated
• and a user does not reply, the user is automatically sent a reminder message after 4 days of the last editor reply, and after 7 days, the UR is automatically marked "not identified" and the last editor to reply is credited with the UR closure.

The "Auto reminder and mark as not identified" flag can only be toggled on if a message is sent. The flag can be toggled off however without a message being sent.

Possible visual presentation: https://imgur.com/VMIGTEW

Access to this feature can be controlled by a country level permission, ideally level 3 and above as default.

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.

The restrictions tool used to be simpler a few years ago. Today it allows to setup not only time/days restrictions but also permits/passes, number of passengers, toll roads and more. With new options such as "allowed", "toll free" and "prohibited" it became confusing even for higher rank editors sometimes.

I've lost count of how many times I checked editors that made 1-2 edits and that added a 24/24h 7/7d permanent restriction on what should be a simple "private road". Or even setup a freeway pass on a simple street.

This tool has become extremely complex and powerful, especially since routing was changed years ago to treat any segment with a restriction applied to behave as a "Walking Trail", not routing into the segment but stopping at the junction node if the address is on the segment.

Applied restrictions are almost impossible to detect or keep track of. Without scripts or selecting and opening menus, we cannot easily differenciate a useful restriction from a wrong one. The UI also makes it harder to see, compared to a wrong red/green arrow, missing segment or other more obvious errors.

For all of those reasons it should be possible to restrict its usage per level and per country.
I would personally make it available only at L2, as 3000 edits is usually enough time to figure out that segment types exist and what their penalties are vs adding restrictions.

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.

The current 100% anonymity of UR reporters makes it impossible for editors to detect reporting patterns of specific Wazers. If URs showed a fully anonymized but user-unique handle for the reporter, editors could identify problematic or abusive patterns. This would save editors time and energy, and allow them easily to report such patterns to community leadership or to Waze for potential action.

Specifically, editors have long suspected that certain Wazers may: (1) repeatedly flag an issue, or a kind of issue, on which they refuse to accept the editing community's past analysis; (2) submit multiple URs for no clear reason, yet never engage when approached for clarification; or (3) traumatize responding editors with a pattern of strongly negative language. Being able to detect these patterns would support and protect the editing community and free up time for more productive work, without compromising reporters' anonymity.

Critically, the "Closed by" signature would have to be adjusted to ensure that, if the UR is closed by the reporter, the anonymized handle is given rather than the true user ID (or it could simply say "Closed by Reporter").