12-05-2016 02:13 AM
This may seem like a dumb question because the category 'Public toilet/bathroom' exists and there are definitely toilets already on the map. However, in order to add a new feature you need to include a name - not a descriptive 'name' like Toilet or WC, but an actual name. As most toilets aren't officially named, then in theory they can't be added. This problem doesn't exist in MapMaker as features can be added without a name. https://productforums.google.com/d/msg/map-maker/2YNLSPQmHH0/-E-BQVp_BwAJ
12-05-2016 02:34 AM - edited 02-24-2017 07:17 AM
Hi @Pea,
I guess in these cases, the name field could really be just what these Public Bathrooms/WC'c/Toilets are and you can use the category name for them in the respective languages.
12-05-2016 03:54 AM - edited 12-05-2016 04:01 AM
So you're saying use a descriptive name, which goes against everything we've been told for years in MapMaker. Obviously MM is a different product and is being retired, but if something as important as naming conventions is being overturned we ought to have a more formal announcement rather than rely on guesswork?
12-05-2016 05:11 AM - edited 12-11-2016 08:55 PM
the main difference between giving a name or not, is not in the MM itself. it has ever been like this that features without a name were not searchable not only in Maps, but in MapMaker as well, hence there was no reason to add them ever, but of course, many people didn't know of this fact at all. then, there has been a special group of features that could, yet needn't have a name, such as cemeteries, parks, parking lots, and all areas in general - special in the extent that they have served as graphical units on Maps; hence they were visible and thus "searchable" even if without a name.
the guideline in question: not to name features with "descriptive names" has had a different purpose: it makes no sense to name features like that, because once they have got their own names, giving them descriptive names would make them "unsearchable" in fact. logically, when I'm interested in a specific business, e.g. "SuperCar" (fancy taxi service), it would not help me at all to see a nearby "taxi service" per se. can you get the point? however, there are plenty of features that normally have no specific name, yet we need them being searchable, so it's quite OK to give them the "descriptive" names. e.g. schools. most of our local schools have no specific name. just the "primary school". the same is valid for the public toilets. if they have no name, then the only name for them would be the "descriptive" name.
PS: the naming conventions haven't been "overtuned" so far, it is just a matter of understanding the guidelines 😉
12-05-2016 09:49 AM
In my original question I was thinking of two scenarios in particular. On a road trip we stopped several times at different parks on the way. Some parks had toilets, others don't and I noted there was a mixture of names some were "(park name) - Toilet", and in others it was called "Toilet". Which ever it didn't matter as when they are flagged as "Public bathrooms" the location gets a little man/woman sign and thus when looking at Google maps we were able to plan our stops. On top of this was the laybys that some times have toilets and some don't. Often the layby is no bigger than a car stop, so hardly needs a label for the layby and a label for the toilet.
Also some public buildings also have toilets that the public can use (librarys, gov buildings). These can't really have their own label as toilet as well as the name of the building, but for someone with legs crossed who is looking for a toilet it would be good to be able to look at Google and see what is available nearby. Not sure how this would be shown, but put the idea out there for discussion.
Paul
12-05-2016 10:32 AM - edited 12-05-2016 11:24 AM
Hi @Tom-SR
I'm aware that something without a name won't appear in searches - I included the link to the MM product forum partly to make that clear as it is mentioned in the answer.
That MM answer is also unambiguous about toilets: "they should not be named unless they have official names"
You say that it's OK to give things descriptive names if they don't have a name. I'm fairly sure that is incorrect but I'm happy to be educated. Hopefully someone who is an experienced MM RL (eg @Flash) can chip in.
It's interesting that you cite schools as an example without names. My experience in the UK is that every school has a name. If you search the map for that school by its name you will get that school. If you search simply using the word 'school' you will get several in the area - they all have the category school.
12-05-2016 11:11 AM
the reason of using official names has been previously explained, and is logical. but we asked Google "how to" about this, and their answer was clear: Google is not about to change the way how our Maps work, so if you need to have the feature in Maps, use the closest name as possible. simply, if there is no official name, you have no other choice than using the generic word for it, which is usually (but not always) the category name itself.
12-05-2016 11:21 AM
Thanks, is that answer from Google here on the forum or elsewhere, could you point me to it?
12-05-2016 11:33 AM - edited 12-05-2016 11:51 AM
as RLs we used to have online sessions with Gustavo when MapMaker was in course. but I'm almost sure that this information would be written somewhere as well. one way or another, Google can answer this query again also here. I can just tell you that we have absolutely no problem with search results, despite the fact that our schools generally have no official names. it's all about "local habits", and Maps are intended to be used mostly by local people. we know what we search (for) and that's it.