DwarfLord
My feedback
85 results found
-
188 votesDwarfLord
supported this idea
·
-
197 votesDwarfLord
supported this idea
·
-
5 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment DwarfLord
commented
I have passed this request to the Florida volunteer editors' group.
-
25 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment DwarfLord
commented
There is no requirement in WME to provide lane guidance at any given intersection. Adding (or removing) lane guidance is entirely voluntary on the part of the editor, acting under (hopefully) the general guidance of the local editing community. Now, whether some editors or editing communities may have gotten carried away adding lane guidance in situations where it doesn't help or may even detract from the driver's experience -- that is a different question.
-
69 votes
If we change the order, does it make sense that a place under the map comment won’t be selectable?
An error occurred while saving the comment DwarfLord
commented
Admin: This is a response to your request for more details. Yes, it is true that a Map Comment AREA overlapping an Area Place presents a prioritization challenge. Personally I would prioritize the Map Comment, but I accept that others may have different opinions. HOWEVER, a Map Comment POINT overlapping an Area Place presents no such challenge. If the user clicks within a very tight radius of the MC point, WME can be reasonably assured the user wishes to select the point and not the area that happens to overlap it. Hope this helps.
An error occurred while saving the comment DwarfLord
commented
Note: whatever form the solution to this issue takes, it should not end up inadvertently encouraging editors to turn off their Map Comments layer (for example, to select a Place located behind a Map Comment)! Last thing we want is people turning off the Map Comments layer and forgetting to turn it back on.
DwarfLord
shared this idea
·
-
93 votes
Hey!
Thank you very much for this great suggestion.
It was added to our backlog to try and see the possibility to implement it.Please note there is no ETA for it yet.
Best,
HeziDwarfLord
supported this idea
·
-
184 votes
Thanks all! We're researching this further and will come back with follow up questions shortly.
DwarfLord
supported this idea
·
-
66 votesDwarfLord
supported this idea
·
-
90 votesDwarfLord
supported this idea
·
-
16 votesDwarfLord
shared this idea
·
-
68 votes
Thank you to all who submitted and voted for this suggestion, however it is currently not planned due to PII issues associated with tracking URs in this manner. Please make sure to include the UR ID when reporting abusers on the map so that Staff can properly track the case. Often times we are unable to investigate due to no longer having the UR ID once the UR is closed and deleted.
DwarfLord
shared this idea
·
-
24 votesDwarfLord
supported this idea
·
-
69 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment DwarfLord
commented
Two thoughts:
1. The image is from WME, not the app. What matters is the app display, which at present doesn't show city boundaries at all. Rather it "floats" the city name above the other items on the display in a way it hopes is unobtrusive. Is there any complaint with how the app is doing this?
2. My understanding is that there are two "flavors" of city in Waze. One flavor consists of cities that were part of the original basemap import; they are "hard-coded" into the database and their display boundaries cannot be changed, regardless of anything editors do, without intervention by HQ (which can be requested, but can take some time). The other flavor consists of cities added by editors since the basemap import. The display boundaries for these are fluid, and can change as the primary city names on various segments change.
I believe your best shot at relief from Waze is to (a) demonstrate that the display on the app is messed up, not just the WME cities layer; AND (b) consequently request that HQ modify their hard-coded city boundary. In the US, this process generally implies RC involvement.
-
26 votesDwarfLord
supported this idea
·
-
12 votesDwarfLord
shared this idea
·
-
18 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment DwarfLord
commented
If standardized alerts are offered, deer/wildlife zones should be included. Every year there are between 1 and 2 million deer collision insurance claims in the US alone. Drivers (and wildlife) would benefit from driver alerts when entering known wildlife hazard areas.
To avoid over-alerting, custom alerts should be programmable by season and time of day. For example, schools are only hazards during daylight on weekdays. Deer zones may be more dangerous in the autumn and at early, late, or nighttime hours. This would be critical, because hazard alerts that always sound, even when there is little or no hazard, teach drivers to ignore them or turn them off.
DwarfLord
supported this idea
·
-
35 votesDwarfLord
supported this idea
·
-
109 votes
Hey!
Thank you for this great suggestion.
We currently have an internal process in place to address this issue, and therefore won’t be developed as a feature in the WME.
If you encounter any issue with advertised location. Please let your coordinators know about it, and they will inform the SCM, so we will be able to check this.
Best,
HeziDwarfLord
supported this idea
·
-
23 votesDwarfLord
supported this idea
·
I think the real problem is that editors are underusing Map-Comment points. It is not surprising, as MC Points are often hard to notice. I have direct experience with ranking editors who should know better making changes without respecting critical information in adjacent MC Points. I can only assume it is because the Points didn't stand out enough and weren't noticed. So I have been using MC Areas more frequently, though I'd rather use MC Points.
So perhaps the real solution is to make MC Points more visible? Larger? More colorful? Somehow harder to miss. Then encourage editing communities to rely more heavily on MC Points than MC Areas.
MC Areas are needed for certain situations, but they are indeed intrusive, and I too find myself forced to switch off the comment layer to really see what is going on under them.