wxw777
My feedback
-
24 votesLooking into the suggestion · 1 comment · Map Editor Suggestions · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
An error occurred while saving the comment wxw777
supported this idea
·
-
30 votes
Hey!
Thank you for the suggestion.
In order to check this suggestion, we would like you to share some more examples with us.
We aim to get the understanding of how often this is an issue.Best,
Hezi.wxw777
supported this idea
·
-
208 voteswxw777
supported this idea
·
-
66 voteswxw777
supported this idea
·
-
18 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment wxw777
commented
Also finish the fixes to allow multiple entry points to work correctly on all platforms in production.
wxw777
supported this idea
·
-
30 voteswxw777
supported this idea
·
-
36 votes
Thanks to all who submitted and voted on this suggestion! It has been added to our backlog.
An error occurred while saving the comment wxw777
commented
Having discussed this feature with other fellow editors, we have some suggestions of how this might work the best.
Each segment with this type of soft-closure would make every attempt to get the user onto a LS+ segment unless it's the only way to the destination. So this is different than just treating contiguous closed segments like a PR. Essentially, you would add a penalty at each junction to continue on to another soft-closed segment. This accommodates what highway authorities generally intend with "local access only" closures.
wxw777
shared this idea
·
-
17 votesLooking into the suggestion · 0 comments · Map Editor Suggestions · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →wxw777
supported this idea
·
-
37 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,
Heziwxw777
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment wxw777
commented
This is also very much like suggestion: https://waze.uservoice.com/forums/59225-map-editor-suggestions/suggestions/41679403-timed-reminder-for-mcs. Perhaps they can be merged.
-
43 voteswxw777
supported this idea
·
-
39 votesLooking into the suggestion · 0 comments · Map Editor Suggestions » General · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →wxw777
supported this idea
·
-
49 votesLooking into the suggestion · 2 comments · Map Editor Suggestions » General · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →wxw777
supported this idea
·
-
54 votesLooking into the suggestion · 1 comment · Map Editor Suggestions » General · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →wxw777
supported this idea
·
-
80 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,
Heziwxw777
supported this idea
·
-
106 votes
This is a great suggestion! We'll add it to our backlog for development, and update here when we've made progress.
wxw777
supported this idea
·
-
119 votesAdded to backlog · 6 comments · Map Editor Suggestions » General · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →wxw777
supported this idea
·
-
168 votes
Will be taken into consideration as part of the lane guidance Improvements planned for 2021
wxw777
supported this idea
·
-
254 voteswxw777
supported this idea
·
-
82 votes
Thanks for submitting this idea!
We're looking into the suggestion and will update if we have any more questions or a solution to share.
-Waze Communities Team
An error occurred while saving the comment wxw777
commented
After further discussion with other editors, it may be better to give the user a pop-up indicating only a single report is needed and give them the opportunity to enter more details. As opposed to just rate limiting them. This would help with education. Hands-free, dictated additional info would be ideal when there is no navigator.
wxw777
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment wxw777
commented
This sounds like a good idea as editors have no way of knowing if all the requests are from the same person. It also is of no benefit to the user to have us replying to each requesting additional info and then they get bombarded with "spam" from the responses. It ultimately would be a win-win for both editors and users.
I agree that it may be best applied to only L1 editors or users with no editor profile. The range or time-threshold between reports is the only real question mark.
-
69 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment wxw777
commented
Other than the fact that 2/3 of the land mass in Wisconsin and much of northern Illinois have addresses in either a partial grid (e.g. W8743) or full grid (e.g. N37W8743) format, users can create their own RPPs with these, but editors cannot. Very frustrating telling a user that they must do it themselves, we can't help. (We do have an ugly hack though: https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/Wisconsin#Alphanumeric_House_Numbers)
For Point and Area Places, we cannot use the in WME either. But there we can log into the app and fix the address there. With RPPs, you much be at the location.
Yes, would be nice to have HNs work too, but understand more coding is needed to do that due to indexing/sequencing. So just hoping for at least RPPs to, especially where GMap addresses (fallback search) are unavailable or way off.
wxw777
shared this idea
·
This is very similar to the need we have in in the US where some areas have house numbers that start with a cardinal letter (i.e. N,W, E,W). These are un-editable in WME if created by a user in the app.