Adding Baseball and other Fields.

[Nathan D]

I am pretty confused after the latest update. I can not find a way to add a tennis court, basketball court, or anything of that sort!
Did they take this away, or am I just completely blind?

[Ken77]

Nathan,

An important change for this update is that for miscellaneous boundaries like tennis and basketball court, we now add the specific category AFTER we draw the boundary.

Here are the steps to follow:

(1) Choose ADD NEW, then select "Add Natural features and Political boundaries." (The wording of this is confusing. This choice is used to draw all polygons except buildings.) 

(2) Select "Grounds / Boundary" as the category. (This generic category is now used for all boundaries except for 57 "natural" and "political" features like parks and cities.)

(3) Draw the polygon as usual.

(4) When the drawing is completed, in the left panel, open the Categories section and click on "Add category."

(5) Add the specific category such as tennis court.

In another thread, I said that when I added a new tennis court after this update, it was gray instead of blue as in the past:

old tennis courts:   http://tinyurl.com/9uvbdqt

new tennis courts:   http://tinyurl.com/9lke3vj 

I'm hoping this color change is just a temporary glitch and won't be permanent. If you add other items like a basketball court, please let us know is the color has been changed.

[Nathan D]

Okay. I noticed that before, but I wasn't completely sure if that was the right way to do it.
Thank you.

[Ken77]

Blissfulight, thanks for explaining this option. Your method is better because is does not cause a color change.

In the past, tennis courts were always blue. When I created one using the method I described above, it was gray:    http://tinyurl.com/9uvbdqt

But I just created a new tennis court using the "Add a Place" method and it is blue:   http://goo.gl/maps/wovhG

Nathan, please disregard the method I described above. Use the "Add a Place" method. For things like tennis courts that don't have an official name, leave the name empty.

[Andrew Sawyer]

Rendering colors really shouldn't be taken into account when mapping. Those are done separately and can be adjusted on the fly. While it would be nice to have pretty colors on the map, it appears that the powers that be are constantly tweaking what objects render in what way to achieve some aesthetically pleasing result. 

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the “General Map Maker” Google Group.
- To post a public response in this same thread, please reply to this e-mail.
- To find a list of Frequently Asked Questions, visit- http://goo.gl/yuVdY
- To post a new topic, visit- http://goo.gl/DeX9Z & select 'Post a question'
- To unsubscribe from this list, manage your subscriptions here: http://goo.gl/oGfnJ

Thanks for using Google Map Maker! =)
 
 
 

[Ken77]

Andrew, thanks for your comment, but I have to disagree that "colors really shouldn't be taken into account when mapping."

My first job over 40 years ago was working with professional cartographers at a traditional map making company. They would be horrified at the idea that colors are anything less than very important in mapping.  

Take the tennis club I linked to above:  http://tinyurl.com/9uvbdqt

The tennis club is gray and courts are blue. If tennis courts are gray (as they are using the method I described above), it's a waste of time to add the courts. You need to make a choice:  add the club boundary, or add the courts. Pointless to add both.

Fortunately, using blissfulight's method, we don't have to make that choice.

[Andrew Sawyer]

Ken, I understand what your point is. I think colors are important too and an important part of mapping. But my main point was to map features according to the appropriate category, not the color as we have no control over the color used and it can be changed at any point. It would make more sense that fields would render more prominently than a club boundary. There have been major inconsistencies between athletic field categories rendering in different colors. 

To summarize: colors are important and they should be used to help the viewer, we just don't have any control over that and should be mapping reality and hope bad color choices are eventually changed. 

--

[Nathan D]

So which way is better to do it?

Also:
Could I create a unnamed boundary for the courts and then add each court separately, or just have one region encompassing all of the courts.
Here's an example

[Andrew Sawyer]

I left a comment on your edit saying that you did it correctly, one boundary for the entire contiguous area. However tennis courts shouldn't be named "Tennis Court" as it is generic. 

[Ken77]

Nathan, you asked:

"So which way is better to do it?"

Don't use the steps I gave in my first post. If you do, you'll end up with a gray boundary instead of the correct blue color. You want to use the steps blissfulight gave:

Add New→Add A Place→Select category→Tennis Court→Automatic popup on the bottom for Add a shape appears→Mark boundary→Draw the shape

You also asked:

"Could I create a unnamed boundary for the courts and then add each court separately, or just have one region encompassing all of the courts."

You can do it either way, depending on what you think will look better on the map.

In some cases, I prefer to use separate boundaries for each court, as this this example:  http://tinyurl.com/9uvbdqt

The racquet club was added with "Tennis club" as the category, which has a gray boundary. And I thought having the individual blue tennis courts on top would look good on the map.

In other cases, I prefer using one boundary for multiple tennis courts.

My experience with Google Reviewers regarding multiple tennis courts has been mixed. On many occasions I have used a single "tennis court" boundary for two or more tennis courts, just like your example. In most cases they were approved. But there was one particular reviewer (named Chris) who would approve the edit, but he would then reduce the boundary to just one court. Here is an example of one of them:  

http://goo.gl/7SoxK

My original boundary covered all the courts but he reduced it to just one court.

The reviewer did this several times, although he never included any explanation. I just assumed he figured "tennis court" was singular and so he was going to allow only one court. 

After he started doing this, I searched around to see how other approved tennis courts were added. What I found was a mixture of things. 

-- There are many examples of multiple tennis courts being covered with a single "tennis court" boundary.

-- When there are multiple courts AND there is seating, "stadium" is can be used as the category as in this example:  http://goo.gl/o4UlK

-- I have also seen "Sports complex" used when there is more than one tennis court. It can also be used for multiple basketball courts such as this example:  http://goo.gl/6hKgJ

All of these categories have the same blue color.

[Nathan D]

Thanks for the reply.
I think that I will make my tennis courts this way:

• One boundary including all of them
• Created as a place rather than a boundary
• Leave it unnamed

Would this process be the same for baseball fields, athletic fields, basketball courts, and so on?

Oh, and Ken, are all those houses already in 2.5D automatically? Or did someone manually add in all of those houses? Do you know how recent that 45 degree picture is? It seems low quality, very washed out in comparison to Bird's Eye view on that one website we all hate.

[Ken77]

Nathan,

Most of the buildings you see on the map were added by some sort of automated process which created shapes that are only a rough approximation of the building. 

Here is an example:   http://goo.gl/maps/k4Iti

Notice that some buildings are "flat" and some have the 2.5D shading. To get the 2D effect, a height must be added to the "Building Attributes." I don't know why the automated process only added a height to some of the buildings.

Switching to Satellite view, you can see that none of the buildings are an accurate shape.

Some of these automated building shapes are wildly inaccurate, combining two or more buildings into one shape that is completely wrong.  Example:   http://goo.gl/maps/Q2GWq

When we create a new building in Map Maker, the shape must be accurate to get approval. None of these automated buildings would have been approved if we created them.

We can add new 2.5D buildings ourselves. Here is a group of five 2.5D buildings I created:   http://goo.gl/maps/UexkQ

There is a Help page explaining how to create 2.5D buildings here:  http://support.google.com/mapmaker/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2364647

You can also convert a flat building to 2.5D by adding a height.

Regarding the 45 degree photos, I find the image quality varies a lot, just as with Street View. Some areas are crisp and clear, others are not.

[Ken77]

Nathan,

You asked:

"Would this process be the same for baseball fields, athletic fields, basketball courts, and so on?"

Yes, same process. But remember that it's OK to add a name whenever the feature has a official name.

In my city there is a park with three baseball fields. Each field has an official number. So I was able to add the names as Field 1, Field 2, and Field 3, and these names display on the regular map. This is important information because many little league games are played there and people need to know where Field 2 is when their game is scheduled there. If you use this technique, be sure to explain in the Comments to the reviewer that the names you added are official names.

[Nathan]

Okay, thanks.
I guess they still need to work on that technology a bit.
Are you sure that the building you made is 60 feet tall? It looks to be shorter than that. But I'm not famailar with the area or anything. Can you let me know how you got this number? What is the easiest way to calculate the height of a building? (note: I do not have 45 degree pictures in my area, but I do have street view.)

--

[Ken77]

Nathan,

The Help page for 2.5D buildings I linked to above has a detailed discussion about how to estimate building heights. Here is the short version:

For buildings with many floors, use 11 or 12 feet per floor.  For one or two story buildings, a height of up to 15 or 20 may sometimes be appropriate (such as a warehouse).

The 60 foot building I added is a stable building. It has a tall dome and it's highest point is 60 feet, which is easier to see in this photo:   http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/22491/images/stables_front_view_small.jpg

The Help page for 2.5D buildings says that for buildings such as this that have several different height levels, we should enter the highest height.

[Nathan D]

Ah, okay. It just looks silly being that big.
Would it be possible to make several "unnamed" buildings that show the height of each level?
Are 3D buildings make in SketchUp automatically imported after they are on Google Earth? Most buildings don't have a flat roof, so the 2.5D thing doesn't really work out well.
Should I just go and add whatever ones, or should I focus on buildings that have a flat roof?

[Andrew Sawyer]

Add any building. If its converted to 3d then the 2.5 building won't render in the vector version of Google Maps.

---

From: General Map Maker on behalf of Nathan D <google-mapmaker+noreply-APn2wQd9...@googlegroups.com>

Sender: General Map Maker on behalf of Nathan D <google-...@googlegroups.com>

Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 12:05:55 -0700 (PDT)

To: <google-...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: General Map Maker on behalf of Nathan D <google-...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: Adding Baseball and other Fields.

--

[Nathan D]

Okay thanks.
And you agree that any type of sports field (baseball, football, and so on) should be added as a place, right?

On Sunday, October 21, 2012 3:15:25 PM UTC-4, Andrew Sawyer wrote:

Add any building. If its converted to 3d then the 2.5 building won't render in the vector version of Google Maps.

---

From: General Map Maker on behalf of Nathan D <google-mapmaker+noreply-APn2wQd9YwoEBQ_nP131SOzAyuqmi70fNyvZCeFT@googlegroups.com>

[Flash]

Sports fields have always been added as places (or POIs as we tend to call them here, to distinguish them from Google Places).

I would caution you, though, about multi-use fields.  I know of very few football fields; but rather they are football at certain times of the year, soccer others, then might be use for ruby or field hockey, etc.  For such a field I would use the generic Athletic Field; as that is more true to it's function.

[Nathan D]

I'm mapping Florida so I won't have to worry about seasonal changes :D

Why is there an option to add it as a boundary? Seems strange, but thanks Flash.

[Flash]

The map is just POIs and lines.  They are differentiated from each other by their attributes.  A boundary is one of the optional attributes for a POI.

[Nathan D]

I mean:
Add new --> Add Natural Features and Political Boundaries --> Grounds / Boundary --> then change the category to "Tennis Court" or something else. Would there be a reason to use this method?

[Ken77]

Flash makes a valid point. 

However, a key difference between using "Football field" or "Soccer field" as opposed to "Athletic field" is the color.

A football or soccer field is dark green:  http://goo.gl/e8Hge

An Athletic field is blue:  http://goo.gl/1xmqH

Some mappers like me put a lot of emphasis on the map's appearance and so color is important to us.

Consider this school:  http://goo.gl/mWMUP

The blue boundary has the category "Basketball court" which renders blue.

I wanted the soccer fields to be green to create a clear visual contrast to the basketball courts. So I used "Soccer field" as the category. 

Some editors don't much pay attention to color, but for me much of the satisfaction from using Map Maker simply lies in making the map look good. And the various colors you get with different categories can have a significant impact on how the map looks. 

[Flash]

Every POI that has the option of adding a boundary is then listed in the section where you start with the boundary attribute first.  They didn't choose which ones to include; just the fact that it can have a boundary gets it automatically included.

[Nathan D]

Thanks for the info.

[Nathan D]

Okay, here's another question:

Should I only list public courts/fields? From what I understand, you are only supposed to add public things to the map, is that correct? I've noticed some baseball fields that are just on the map even though they aren't necessarily public. Should I just map every tennis court I see, or should I only do ones in parks? I've noticed some in schools as well, but generally the public isn't allowed to just access these fields/courts.

[Flash]

I would say public ones only; the general expectation is that something on the map should be able to be visited by the public without having to make special arrangements (thus no service area businesses).

[Ken77]

Nathan, you asked:  "Should I only list public courts/fields?"

I'm not aware of any rule that we can only add public features. Tennis courts and other athletic facilities are often added to college and university campuses. These facilities are often not open freely to the public.

I've added tennis courts that are part of a private tennis club such as this one:   http://tinyurl.com/9uvbdqt  

Adding a tennis court that is part of a large apartment complex also seems OK to me, although I've never done it. This seems like it could be useful information to me. If I were looking for an apartment and wanted a tennis court, having the tennis court on the map would be helpful. I can't imagine that any apartment building owner would object to having the desirable features of his property included on the map. I don't think most people assume that just because something appears on the Google map, it is necessarily open to the public.

However, adding a tennis court that is part of a private, single family home is something I would never do. 

===========================================

Here is an update on the COLOR issue that I talk about in other posts on this thread.

Before the recent update, newly created baseball, soccer, and football fields were dark green and layered on TOP of park boundaries (which are lighter shade of green) and school boundaries (which are usually brown but some are gray).

After the recent update, things have become confused.

I think we all seem to agree that the correct way to add athletic features like this is to use "Add a Place."

BASEBALL fields still seem to working the same as before. Here is one I added to a school AFTER the update:  http://goo.gl/QXryS

However, when I added a new FOOTBALL field using "Add a Place", it appears gray on the map instead of green:

new football field in Map Maker:  http://goo.gl/2hHPT

new football field on Map: http://tinyurl.com/8v742u3

Even more confusing is what happened when I added a new SOCCER field to a park. 

new soccer field in Map Maker:   http://goo.gl/IENeg

new soccer field on Map:   http://tinyurl.com/c5v57qv   (it's not visible)

 

The new field was approved two days ago. After approval, new boundaries usually become visible on the Map within an hour. But the new soccer field does NOT appear on the Map, which leads me to think it might be layering BELOW the park boundary. Since I can't see it, I don't know whether the color is dark green (as it was before the update), or gray like the football field I mentioned above. Another possibility is that newly added soccer fields are now the same lighter green color as parks, making the soccer field impossible to see.

All this is very confusing.  And it illustrates the point Andrew made above when he said "There have been major inconsistencies between athletic field categories rendering in different colors."

When you add a new tennis court, soccer field, football field, athletic field, or similar items, please let us know what happens. What color are they, and did they layer on top of any existing boundary such as a park or school?

I will also continue to report what happens when I add these items.

And I hope anyone else reading this post will also report what happens when they add these features.

[Flash]

I'm not aware of any rule that we can only add public features. Tennis courts and other athletic facilities are often added to college and university campuses. These facilities are often not open freely to the public.

The rule is in the guideline for Permitted Businesses and Points of Interest, expressed twice:

Before you start mapping, ask yourself a few basic questions:

• Is this business legal?
• Does this place have a permanent physical location where people can go and complete their business transaction?
• Is this point of interest or business open to the public?

and 

Prohibited businesses and points of interest

Private listings and premises

 

I should have clarified earlier, my apologies.  In applying this, keep in mind that open to the public does not mean it must be free.  You can add the courts in a tennis club; if I can pay a fee and use them.  If I can't use a tennis court because it is for the use of only the owners of a certain condo complex, it is not to be mapped.  Similarly, if the tennis club courts cannot be used unless I'm first a member, then they too are not to be mapped (unless membership is trivial, such as everyone qualifies and it's $30 a year; that's just part of the fee for use).  For the school example, are they only every available to the students?  If so, they should not be mapped by the guidelines.  But it is reasonable to map them if they are open to the public evenings and weekends.

Mapping is not about identifying everything out there and getting it shaded different than the surroundings; people will just use the aerial view if they want those details.  What is important is Search... that's Google's bread and butter, and when you think about it, it is how people use maps now and how they are now useful.  People don't scroll around the map looking for the tennis court colour, that is something from the days of paper maps.  They instead type "tennis court" into the search box when they want to go play a match.  And when they do, the results should all be places that they can go and use.

[Ken77]

Flash, thanks for your very helpful comments.

You quoted the guidelines as saying that features we add must be "open to the public" and that "private premises" are prohibited.

I would like to ask your advice about an interesting case.

I have relatives who live in an incorporated city of about 1600 residents. It is one of the few cities in the U.S. that is entirely "private." All four of the roads leading into the city have a 24-hour manned security gate. No one is allowed into the city by car or on foot unless they are a resident or authorized guest.  

The community has only one official city-owned park. The question is:  is it OK to add this park to the Google map?

To qualify according to the guidelines, the park must be  "open to the public." But how do we define public in this case?

If "public" is defined as all residents of the legally incorporated city, the park is open to the public and therefore OK to add.

But since the entire city is "private," does the prohibition on private premises apply?

My relatives often poke fun at their "private" city and how obsessed some residents are at keeping everyone out. When I asked them about adding the park, they encouraged me to add it. They said some residents might freak out at seeing the park on the map, fearing it would attract trespassers into the city. But my relatives said they pay for the park with their taxes, so the park is "public" to them.

How would you assess this situation? Would adding this park violate the Map Maker guidelines?

And if adding this park is prohibited, does this mean that adding ANY point of interest anywhere within the city limits is prohibited?

Is adding the City Hall prohibited? Is adding the city's public school prohibited?

An interesting case study about this public / private issue.

[Craig Hartel]

Private is private. There are no public spaces or buildings in an fenced-in guarded community. I would map the wall as a boundary perhaps and leave everything inside blank.

[Flash]

On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 9:00:06 PM UTC-7, Craig Hartel wrote:

Private is private. There are no public spaces or buildings in an fenced-in guarded community. I would map the wall as a boundary perhaps and leave everything inside blank.

I agree, the guidelines are pretty clear on that.  And there again; I'm driving through the area, I want to take my dog for a walk because he's cooped up in the car, I look up parks, I drive there... and disappointment.  That is exactly what Google does not want.  We're not trying to make everything pretty no matter what; we are trying to make a useful tool.

[Kev Hardie]

The Colour issue is related to a fundamental difference between paper maps and electronic maps.

On a paper map, a feature is soccer field because it is shown as dark green.
On an electronic map, a feature is dark green because it is a soccer field.

Also, on an electronic map, the colour related to a specific feature can be changed at the whim of those in charge.

This means that the difference between using ""Football field" or "Soccer field" as opposed to "Athletic field" in mapmaker is not the colour that is shown today, but the amount of control and accuracy that is able to be exerted in the future and the amount of data available.

In Mapmaker today both Football field and Soccer field may show up as dark green.
But next week one could be yellow and one purple.

With an electronic map the colours could even vary depending on who was viewing it. For example, it would be possible to make the map render using a different palette that is missing specific colours so that all of the features are distinguishable for a colour-blind person.

So the priority must be on supplying the correct attributes rather than picking attributes according to what colour the feature renders today.

[Flash]

I forgot to say... pretty is nice; I do try and make my edits look good; but it is not a reason to add things or set certain attributes.  The reasons are laid out in the guidelines; it needs to qualify and be set up as per the guidelines, and then while you're doing so you can make it look nice.

[Flash]

Well said Kev, and good insights.

[Nathan D]

But if I make it unnamed it won't show up on the results list for a search, correct?
Therefore I can just map it out to add detail to the standard map view... correct?

My particular thing is in this map view. (zoom in a little to see the courts) There's tons of tennis courts around here. It seems to be a marketing thing or something for these hotels/condos to have a tennis court. And for some insane reason, some of the beachfront ones have pools. Anyways...
I have mapped out two of the tennis courts and left them unnamed.  In this way, it does not show up on a search, it just makes the map look better.
Is it okay for me to continue adding these features? I won't add any private ones, like ones in people's backyards or anything, just the ones that are part of the hotels. Just like you said, it doesn't have to be free. If you go to this hotel, you can use the tennis court.

What do you think?

[Flash]

If I'm at a hotel without a court, and I want to play a match, can I go to the one you want to map and simply pay for a match?  Or is it exclusively for hotel guests?  I don't interpret "Open to the public" to mean "if you jump through a bunch of hopes and buy other items also".  To borrow something from where I work; the public should be invited... there should be posted signs inviting one in just to play tennis or posting the rates for the games; otherwise one would assume that they are not welcome and that they are private.

[Nathan]

Got it.
Thanks.

On Oct 25, 2012 10:02 PM, "Flash via General Map Maker" <google-mapmaker+noreply-APn2wQcd...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

If I'm at a hotel without a court, and I want to play a match, can I go to the one you want to map and simply pay for a match?  Or is it exclusively for hotel guests?  I don't interpret "Open to the public" to mean "if you jump through a bunch of hopes and buy other items also".  To borrow something from where I work; the public should be invited... there should be posted signs inviting one in just to play tennis or posting the rates for the games; otherwise one would assume that they are not welcome and that they are private.

--