wxw777
My feedback
60 results found
-
16 votes
-
14 votes
-
40 votes
-
40 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
165 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 Looking at TxAgBQ's location, it appears the user submitted the URs on the successive days which I believe is beyond the scope of this request and what staff have been working on. As long the the report is valid and on successive days, that's probably going to be continued to be allowed.
If the user is dropping them to be abusive even after being responded to, the current mechanism would be to escalate to the regional coordinator for a possible ban (after validation by staff).
An error occurred while saving the comment 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.
An error occurred while saving the comment 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.
-
289 votes
-
77 votes
Thanks for your feedback. At this time, this doesn't fit on our roadmap, but we'll keep it in mind for future product planning.
-
78 votes
Thanks for your feedback. At this time, this doesn't fit on our roadmap, but we'll keep it in mind for future product planning.
-
85 votes
Thanks for your feedback. At this time, this doesn't fit on our roadmap, but we'll keep it in mind for future product planning.
-
97 votes
Thanks for your feedback. At this time, this doesn't fit on our roadmap, but we'll keep it in mind for future product planning.
-
9 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment This could also be considered a safety issue for some stop signs where they are just over a hill or around a curve and not visible until the last moment. This does not need to be an actionable (route affecting) item. Just an audible user alert.
Community-based rules could state to only add them where the stop sign has restricted visibility.
-
87 votes
-
3 votes
-
157 votes
Thanks for supporting this suggestion! We've added it to the WME team's backlog, and hope to get to it in the near future. We will follow up here when we have an update, or need more info from the community.
-
30 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment 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.
-
33 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. -
106 votes
Thank you for submitting this suggestion!
At the moment, when you hover over a place, it shows its complete address. Is this something that solves the original issue you mentioned?
If not, we would love to hear from you on how it can be improved.
Thank you!
-
22 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Also finish the fixes to allow multiple entry points to work correctly on all platforms in production.
-
61 votes
-
70 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 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.
Also, it has been suggested to add PLR segment to have the same rule applied.