Overly strict and inconsistent definition of "Enclosed traffic area / Parking lot"

[namannik]

Hi.  Since Map Maker has become available for the US, I've gone wild on making edits.  I'm still trying to figure out some of the nuances.  I recently attempted to change the Segment Usage of a road to "Enclosed traffic area / Parking lot".  Satellite imagery clearly shows that this segment is within an enclosed area that is not a part of any named street, and yet I have received the following response from the reviewer:

Hi this segment of the road does not seem to be a Enclosed traffic area / Parking lot as it does not have parking slots on either side. It seems to be a normal terminal road.

This is not the first time I have gotten this type of response on a segment like this.  However, some reviewers, have gone ahead and approved this type of segment regardless of the existence of parking spaces on either side.  Here is the segment in question:

http://www.google.com/mapmaker?gw=55&editids=4HdZH_7pe8LfYb-0J7&iwloc=0_0&t=h&dtab=overview

In my opinion, the definition of an "Enclosed traffic area / Parking lot" should not be limited only to those segments that have parking spaces on either side.  That seems overly restrictive, and completely ignores the "Enclosed traffic area" portion of the description.  There are plenty of areas in parking lots that serve as connecting segments that don't have parking spaces on either side.  Using this overly strict definition results in parking lots that look like this:

Having one short segment in the middle of a parking lot shown as being significantly wider than the rest of the segments just looks weird.  Is this really the way Google wants their maps to look?  Has anyone else run into this sort of thing before?

[Geoffrey Zub]

I agree, I have run into the same strict interpretation of the segment usage, usually I just repeatedly submit the edit till I get a reviewer who approves it.  They need to take into account that this is also an "Enclosed Traffic Area" as well as aesthetics on the map.
Geoff

[A.K.]

I concur, not having the whole thing as enclosed traffic/parking looks silly

[Damian Perry]

I continually have to explain why an edit is correct as ETA/PL, which I might understand for segments without parking stalls if people want to get crazy strict, but then people take it even further and say it has to have stalls on both sides of the segment.  Come one, seriously?  Eventually I usually win, but it's so annoying to have to go through the process.  I still have edits sitting in "pending" mode that were made days ago that haven't been approved.  I also get frustrated to the point that many times I don't even bother to correctly set segments to ETA/PL just because I'm sure there will be an issue with getting approval.  Worse still, someone continues to re-edit segments in an obvious parking area to remove the ETA/PL usage even though it actually makes the map look worse than it already is.  And people approve it.  Or it's automatic... I don't know.  This is pathetic.  My interpretation would be simple:

Rename the current description of "Enclosed traffic area / parking lot" to "Private/Restricted Access / Parking Area"

Amend the definition under the new description to something like: 1) Segments as private roads which forbid or restrict access for public traffic; 2) Segments whose primary reason for being serve to support a restricted area; 3) Segments whose primary reason for being serve to support a parking area (includes entry, exit, and interconnection segments with or without stalls); 4) Segments with parking stalls (or other parking-specific zones, such as undefined dirt lots used for non-stall bulk parking) on one or both sides of their lengthl 6) Alley/driveway segments whose primary purpose are to support residential/visitor parking (such as in carports, garages, etc.).

This is probably the most reasonable way to define the usage that should serve to eliminate most unreasonable denials.

[Otter]

I agree with everyone.  Reviewers take a literal definition of ETA/PL.  Yeah the 7 ft of "driveway" that you need to take to access the parking lot doesn't have parking spots but do you seriously think the map looks better with mutli sized roads?

 

Damian I agree with your definition because apparently common sense isn't enough of a guidance for some people

 

[Ryan Wallace]

I think this is an important distinction that needs to be made. Often I have been driving and thought I could turn on a road as displayed on Google Maps, but really its just an alley or driveway. The lower priority, thinner distinction of "Enclosed traffic area / parking lot" should be applied to all roads that are not suitable for travel, only to maneuver for parking. 

[Saikrishna Arcot]

Perhaps splitting the usage would solve problems for both reviewers and editors.

[Saikrishna Arcot]

At this point there is a state of inconsistency across the US. Some roads are marked as ETA/PL, even through they don't have parking lots on both sides, as mandated by Google. Google, you need to come up with a resolution that defines what qualifies as ETA/PL or change it in some way that make it clear to reviewers and editors whether a road is qualified or not.

[Ryan Wallace]

It has nothing to do with Google and a more strict definition. It requires that editors and moderators use some common sense when editing. If you have a giant shopping area that clearly has a road running through it not used for parking, then its just a terminal road. But if you have a small shopping center where parking only sometime exists on both sides, it should probably just be ETA/PL. The goal is to make Google Maps more accurate and correct for users. If a ETA/PL is marked as a standard terminal road, it could lead to user confusion when viewing the map. Simple common sense people. Its not difficult. 

[Saikrishna Arcot]

Personally, I agree with you, but that's the confusion here. The first part of ETA/PL is Enclosed Traffic Area. Therefore, the logic is if a road is in a shopping area, then it is in an enclosed area. That part is creating the problem.

[Damian Perry]

No, the problem is that people are taking the definition extremely literal.  Two problems.  First, just because the words "Enclosed traffic area" and "parking lot" are combined with a slash does not mean you view them as one.  They are separated by a slash to indicate one or the other (or both) could apply.  So, just because it's not a parking lot, it could still be more loosely defined as an enclosed traffic area.  The second problem is that google make the giant mistake of putting a rule to it... specifically that you have to have stalls on both sides.  You in fact shouldn't "require" that there be stalls at all because a parking lot is made up of many different segments to create a combined structure, some of which do not actually have stalls.  No road that is not used for "through" traffic should be marked without the ETA/PL designation... but it would make more sense to rename it and redefine it.  If it's a parking lot, big or small, it should be marked that way because no one looking at the map should imagine a parking lot road to be used as a "short cut" -- it's bad for cartography and it's bad for drivers.  If you choose to use a parking lot for a short cut, that's fine, but a map should not direct you to that decision.  You can many times get lost in a parking lot with traffic, pedestrians, special events, that should never be on a planned route.  Terminal roads are wider when not given the ETA/PL distinction.  That's why any linkages that are logically for a parking area, whether a private driveway/alley or a traditional parking lot should be designated as ETA/PL.  When roads look consistent on a map, they make sense for the person viewing them.  I'm tired of seeing these stubs of wide road inside a parking lot surrounded by thin ones.  It just looks bad and communicates poor information.  A separate issue is that people are approving every little parking aisle as a separate road segment.  There is such a thing as too much information!  Maps are supposed to be simple conveyances of an area, not every tiny little detail like 30 parking aisles in a row.  One could figure that out upon arrival.  Showing them all on a map doesn't help me to know which aisle has a free spot until I get there.  It clutters the hell out of the map too.  Ugh!  And if you live thousands of miles away from the area you are reviewing, you better be sure you're not making things worse!!

[Saikrishna Arcot]

There are parts that I agree with and parts that I disagree. I feel that mapping at least the main roads. This will help people enter and exit a large shopping area efficiently.

I think it's best to not give the ETA/PL designation to main roads in shopping areas, roads that either connect to the main road (which Google is already enforcing) or can be used to cross parking lot rows. For example, here, you will see a road (which is not mapped). That road, I feel, should be mapped without the ETA/PL designation. The road heading north into the small parking lot can be mapped with the ETA/PL designation. However, Google may remove the ETA/PL designation since it doesn't have parking lots on both sides. That will create an aesthetics issue. Another such example is here. In this case, two of the roads are mapped without the ETA/PL designation since it doesn't have parking lots on both sides.

Above are just my views on the issue.

[Damian Perry]

That's horrible!  Someone went through the trouble of drawing out every single parking aisle.  That is just ridiculous.  Way too much information for a map.  It's just too much detail to make it a quick reference.  You don't need all that detail for a map to be useful.  I think Chino Hills is ruined.  Honestly, I'm about to start sending my customers to Bing or Mapquest to find us.  Google always had my company's address/plot marker in the wrong spot way up the street and customers could never find us without calling to ask where we were.  With the ability to edit this stuff, I was finally able to move the marker.  Then I added the actual building footprints and numbered them so people can finally see where on the map the actual address is with reference to the specific building.  I went ahead and drew in the specific parking lot segments that lead around to each different building, but not the one that just went aisle to aisle as that's more information than necessary to find an address.  Marking every aisle would have added a lot of clutter to the map making it a chore to figure out what's going on quickly and easily.  I'm so disappointed that people are marking things like gang blocks, illegal off-roading sites, and making street connections where physical barriers exist just because it "looks like" the streets connect.  Blah!

You should give ETA/PL to everything in a parking lot, even main roads, because they are not main roads.  The purpose for them to exist is to serve a parking area, not through traffic.  If you mark them as main roads, people think they are main roads and could try to plan a route using them.  Consider the speed limit inside a parking lot is 15 MPH and that's poor planning.  No one should use a parking lot main road for anything other than parking lot access.  That would mean a designation of ETA/PL would help to enforce that thinking for visitors unfamiliar to the area.  Thinner roads = don't go there unless you have to.  That's a very clear explanation to someone looking at a map.  The thinner it is, the more restricted the use.  Parking lot roads are ultimately very restricted because the are 15 MPH and have pedestrians all over the place.  They should all be the thinnest to convey that rationale.

[IndianaRed]

I have just had comments from a Reviewer, telling me that my main parking lot roads with no stalls, should be designated as ETA/PL. Is this a change in policy?

I did not designate them ETA/PL because I was trying to be consistent with what already existed. I don't care either way, as long as I am not told different things by different reviewers.

[Ryan Wallace]

I have gotten a specific comment that they have reversed their policy to provide more consistent application.

"Comment on Jun 2, 2011 5:35pm by Google Reviewer Stephanie
Hi, based on user input about inconsistencies in parking lot designation, all roads within parking lots(excluding very large parking lots for super malls, airports, etc) are now being designated as enclosed traffic area. This is why other parking lots in the area might be labeled differently. Please change the segment usage for this parking lot to Enclosed Traffic and also feel free to change other roads in the area as well. Thanks!"

Another issue that needs to be addressed are parking lot aisles. I am not sure why GMM users believe these are valid to be mapped. Other than the enjoyment of creating new things, what benefit to Google Maps users to these aisles provide? (Example: http://www.google.com/mapmaker?ll=41.598484,-93.753237&spn=0.003213,0.00692&z=18&iwloc=0_0&gw=39&fid=9794240275538227333:11281368142717059071) I understand mapping the outlying roads that provide access to shopping centers/malls/etc, but aisles are complete overkill and do provide any benefit. Its my belief that these segments should be deleted to avoid confusion and clean up the map.

[Cory McKay]

When I saw the parking aisles start popping up I thought the same thing, but I've since changed my mind and I would prefer to have them. Among other things, you can see what parking areas are connected from map view.  But I would rather only see them after everything else is mapped, especially buildings.  I think Google is fine with them being mapped, and if you look at some of the mapping samples, there's quite a range of what's okay.  They have a sample of a golf course that is fully mapped out including tees and holes even though the mapper had to use the "Park" category for them.

[Saikrishna Arcot]

Does the policy change mean that we should add the ETA/PL segment usage to all roads within shopping areas?

[Damian Perry]

That's what I've started to do... and it's amazing how over the past several days...... not one single comment against the ETA/PL usage!  Every one of my edits has gone live without issue.  The map looks so much cleaner now and continues to get better.  We're not deleting the roads, just illustrating them in a clear, consistent fashion.  I'm still not a total fan of the "drawing every aisle" theory, but I'll capitulate to that since I'm getting my way with the acceptance of ETA/PL usage.  It's a complete 180-degree turnaround -- and it seems to have been accepted system-wide.  Bravo!

[Saikrishna Arcot]

I'm happy with the policy change. It's just that since there are like "main roads" within the parking lot area, the directions might not use them.

[Damian Perry]

As I understand it, directions would be correct if the destination were set to something within the parking lot.  You should never use a parking lot main road as a route anyways so it's not a big deal.  Anyone "cutting" through a parking lot is asking for trouble -- in many places this is technically illegal, though rarely enforced.  If you need directions to a specific shop in a mall and any road leads to it, the directions should lead there, but only because the destination is specifically only accessible by that route.  This is good cartographic principle.  Never tell someone to take a parking lot to get somewhere if the parking lot isn't a part of the destination... it's better to stick to actual roads, regardless of how "built up" the parking lot road might be.

[Saikrishna Arcot]

When adding the ETA/PL designation to a parking lot road, I got this comment from a reviewer:

Comments: Hi, I am approving the feature and changing the priority to local road. Thanks.

The edit is here.

Should roads like these be given the Local Road priority so that they have some priority over the other parking lot aisles?

[Damian Perry]

It has been my understanding that ETA/PL segments are always Terminal Roads.  If someone is setting it to a Local Road, I suppose it might have the side effect of creating priority, but I believe a worse side effect is that it would be included in routing of directions.  Again, you should never route someone through a parking lot, no matter how "nice" the road is.  There are pedestrians in a parking lot and they are random, so it's an obstacle you should avoid whenever possible.  Speed limits in parking lots are rarely more than 15 MPH.  It's always usually technically illegal to "cut" through a parking lot.  The law usually states that a parking lot, being private property, should only be used for destinations within the parking lot.  That law may be more or less true depending on where you're driving, but it's generally bad practice to drive through a parking lot for any other reason than to arrive there.  It might be setting priority over other aisles, but honestly... if your destination is inside the parking lot, do you really need directions on which aisle to take?  One would think that once you got to the parking lot, you could figure the rest out... Google doesn't control you... it's not like if your maps tell you to make a right on this aisle and there's a car stopped in the way, you're not going to move to the next available aisle.  There are better things to do with your mapping time than to nitpick about route priority within a parking lot.

[Nolan Crees]

I find this to be a good way to map shopping centers. By setting the passage roads to local and enclosed, you route interior traffic to them without attracting through traffic. I have gone to the location in the edit mentioned above and changed several lengths of road to local to encourage routing to them when traveling within the shopping center. What do you think?

[DdDave]

That's the correct way to map big parking lots.  See here for more details.  All roads get the ETA/PL designation, and the main throughfares can be local priority, and all of the aisles with the actual parking stalls should be terminal.