MichaelGwiz's post
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Level 7

I can't a photo to a "Add a New Place" on the Desktop version of Maps

 When you add from Android's Map, you can add a place and add a photo simultaneously (to bolster your credibility) but that opinion to include a picture is not there on the desktop version.

This would be useful.  And it fixes a few issues.

The current omission messes up my workflow to add pictures from desktop... unless it's a new place, and then I have to switch to the phone.  

Also, I was adding places that seem crazy - but do exist IRL and the pictures would have been useful to the algorithm.  Or at least the rhythm of the algorithm.  

 

(Yes, I know that you could add the place.  Then wait for a few days for it to go live.  Then add the pictures.  But that then leaves orphan photos in your directory, which you then forget about.)  

Wilmington, NC, United States
11 comments

Accepted Solutions
Connect Moderator
Solution

Re: I can't a photo to a "Add a New Place" on the Desktop version of Maps

While the township might refer to those parking lots in that manner, when they are doing so they are describing them.  In other words, referring to the parking lot for "1234 Beach Access "1234 Beach Access" is a description.  It's fine for their purposes, but Maps does not accept descriptions in the name field.

 

If polygon editing ever returns to Maps then you could add an unnamed parking polygon to visually show people there is parking at the location.  But unnamed points serve no purpose on the map.

 

Regarding the Beach designation, Maps currently lets one only edit POIs who's category are in a specific subset commonly referred to as the Establishment subset.  Beach is in another subset.  As more advanced editing becomes available it will hopefully become an option, but it is in fact incorrectly used in the example you found.  Just as a point feature representing a parking lot needs a proper name, so does a beach.  The name of the access trail is not the name of the beach.  Do you know if there is a name for the beach?

Flash - LG Connect Moderator, Maps Platinum Product Expert, Map Maker Platinum Product Expert, RER and Regional Lead

Due to the volume I receive, I do not respond to unsolicited private messages

View solution in original post

Level 9
Level 9

Re: I can't a photo to a "Add a New Place" on the Desktop version of Maps


@MichaelG wrote:

I was adding places that seem crazy - but do exist IRL

Not everything in real life can necessarily be mapped, if places seem crazy they may not be suited for the base map. Can you post links to any examples of crazy places you added?

 

FYI although Android allows us to include a photo at the same time as an addition, there is no confirmation that this is used in Google's checking (review) process

Level 7

Re: I can't a photo to a "Add a New Place" on the Desktop version of Maps

@Pea

Absolutely.  Thank for your response.  Here's one.  https://www.google.com/maps/place/1347+Beach+Access/@33.9752251,-77.9139418,18.75z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s...

As background: Beach Access points in North Carolina, like most in the US are public right of ways.  However they are often dotted amidst and traverse past private property.  That's because the public owns the tidal waterfront and has the right to get to it.  However, each little community handles it differently.  Many number them, just for administrative purposes and public safety.  They often have their own signs and sometimes regular visitors.  Some have parking lots, others are only accessible by bike or foot.  So the closest Google Category is "Parking Lot" or "Parking Lot - bike" (I actually intended to post this particular circumstance into the suggestions section.)   The categories for Beach Pavilion or Park are less useful and less accurate I believe.  I think a "trail" category or "Trailhead" or "Access trail" might be a welcome addition.  I ran into this problem mapping some spots in Utah and Colorado for the same reason.  I guess you could advance edit and change the 'road' map, but that doesn't seem to match what the public would search for if they were trying to find Access or particular access points to the beaches.  

 

So it's "crazy," because it requires 'adding' a parking lot with an access trail, and the parking lot is the least interesting thing about it.  And a picture could show that.  

 

(I've actually seen where other users added them as religious sites.  Perhaps less than ideal, but thematically compelling.)

Level 9
Level 9

Re: I can't a photo to a "Add a New Place" on the Desktop version of Maps

Hi @MichaelGwiz thanks for the detailed explanation that helps, but it's pretty clear what you've done shouldn't be on the map.

 

From your reply I think the main thing you want on the map is a path from the road leading down to the beach as seen here https://goo.gl/maps/7ydVNPDcJCT2 ? Whereas what you seem to have done is drop a pin on someone's private house and call it a Parking lot for bikes.

 

Until MapMaker closed three weeks ago you could have added this path yourself but currently with line features (eg roads, trails etc) you can only notify Google and let them do it which may take a while. A trailhead would be a point feature but these are no longer considered mappable.

 

The parking lot across the road could in theory be mapped as a point feature separate from the path, however the most important thing with any feature we add to the map is the name. Generally speaking features must have a proper name, not a descriptive name. Most roadside parking places of this kind don't have names and thus they can't be added to the base map. They can however be added to a custom map https://www.google.com/maps/about/mymaps/

 

Btw if you have future crazies the best thing to do before you add any to the map is to ask on the Mapping Your World board

 

 

Level 7

Re: I can't a photo to a "Add a New Place" on the Desktop version of Maps

@Pea

Thanks for the thoughts! 

I settled on the category for a few specific reasons:

1) A person searching their map for parking, will find this - which is appropriate and useful.

2) While I agree that typical parking lots (unless they are named) might not have names, these do.  They are specifically numbered, and these numbers are permanent.  I was careful to name them the same as the municipality names them.

2a)  Where possible I'm linking back to the original municipality site, which should be helpful, ie: in case of emergency, parking tickets, or alternative parking.

3) They actually have legal status that is different than trails, and is more closely akin to a public's right .

4)  The addresses are those assigned by the municipality.  They often are separate lot/plots than the neighboring private property.  I entered those actual addresses in the requested info.  However, sometimes I found that because the land is not built upon, Google re-addressed it to the neighboring property, which I then corrected.  (I can't say that it stuck.)

4a) As part of this, using the parking lot designation solved this problem, as Google did not require a built structure for this data type.  (it seemed)

4b) The potential confusion is slightly possible, however, it's already the address that the municipality is using (many times their 'number' is actually the number portion of the street address - though not for all municipalities) and so that risk is already out there; and also this is minimized, because the residential places are not showing up in the base map.

5)  these are very often associated with public safety reporting points and lifeguard stands, and so their presence on the base map is very relevant.

6)  These are public property sites.  Legally, they are closely grouped with city parks, municipal buildings, and playgrounds.  That makes them relevant to broad public knowledge and the base map.

7)  These also are appropriately parking lots, literally, as many beach municipalities use them to handle parking for tourist nightlife and for digital payment stations for on street parking.

😎  Using this category encourages all of the above, and it promotes consistency - as they all explicitly satisfy the requirements of either parking lot or parking lot for bikes.  

 

I did think through the alternatives:

1) The closest 'beach' category was 'beach pavilion', which though underused, seemed to served fewer purposes.

2) The private map option is there.  But it also did not seem to serve the same purpose for ease of use/searches for parking, public safety, or public property.  And it risked duplication or incorrect tinkering.

2b)  The incorrect tinkering is a real problem.  Because these are public property rights adjacent to very expensive private property.  So you can guess which one doesn't want the other one to exist or be noticed or used too much.  Thus the base map seemed better suited to let the public administer this visibility and preserve this use.

2c)  See California, or North Carolina

3)  I found that the road creation option was "Sorta" still there, under "Send Feedback" - "Report a Missing Road" (disclaimer, this is true on desktop version as of 4/21/2017), but... you can't search for roads in the same way someone would search for "where do I park to get on the beach"

4)  The best option would be perhaps tiny parks - which are what these actually are - they are public property rights to unoccupied land with parking lots.  But that option seemed not to be ideal, because then if someone searched for parks, then search results would be swamped with access points.  

 

I hope this isn't TL:DR.  It's the process I'm try to use in approaching the maps: how will the map data assist the average person for non-commercial benefits as well asl   

Level 9
Level 9

Re: I can't a photo to a "Add a New Place" on the Desktop version of Maps


@MichaelG wrote:

  I hope this isn't TL:DR.  


Ha, well it is quite long but I did read, better too much info than too little. However I'm not convinced but your naming explanation so I'm going to refer this for expert advice. Also, although these may have legal status as you say, that's not really Google's deciding factor regarding what it allows on its base map.

 

Hi @Flash can you read thru this thread, sorry quite long, check my reasoning in replies above, and look at https://goo.gl/maps/nstwZUjr8Hq  https://goo.gl/maps/bpxrhewZYaS2  https://goo.gl/maps/3NL8Kvsmwdq  https://goo.gl/maps/r8Fcve9bm3C2     Thanks

Connect Moderator

Re: I can't a photo to a "Add a New Place" on the Desktop version of Maps

Looking into Street View, "XXXX Beach Access" is the name of the trail, not the parking lot.  Just as we would not name the parking associated with a Walmart as "Walmart" or "Walmart parking"; these lots also do not qualify to be mapped as they do not have proper names.  Adding the name of what they serve is adding a descriptive name and creates a duplicate of the actual feature.  Any already mapped should be removed.

 

Instead please use the "Report Missing Road" option in Send Feedback.  Trails are simply roads that don't allow vehicular traffic.  I already did one, I placed the marker in the middle of the trail, named it "1347 Beach Access" and then added a note that said "Trail from road to beach, name can be verified in Street View".

Flash - LG Connect Moderator, Maps Platinum Product Expert, Map Maker Platinum Product Expert, RER and Regional Lead

Due to the volume I receive, I do not respond to unsolicited private messages

Level 7

Re: I can't a photo to a "Add a New Place" on the Desktop version of Maps

@Pea - Ha, thanks for reading and being a good sport. 

@Flash, thanks for reviewing.  I'll add the suggested trails under those names.

 

And just so you know, the parking lots are not showing up on maps before, because as you say they have no feature (no Walmart) to attach to and no proper name other than mere numbers.  So I was using the proper names supplied by the city (Kure Beach township - which they just used a number for naming) - and adding the descriptive, because the number alone was silly.  I see this happening at Wrightsville Beach too, Access 4, which has a parking lot of 50+/- spaces not showing on the map, and the trail isn't marked (I'm doing it now).  Curiously, that Access 4 POI's category is "public beach" - which is no longer available.

 

 All that being said... cool. No worries.  Have a great weekend!

Connect Moderator
Solution

Re: I can't a photo to a "Add a New Place" on the Desktop version of Maps

While the township might refer to those parking lots in that manner, when they are doing so they are describing them.  In other words, referring to the parking lot for "1234 Beach Access "1234 Beach Access" is a description.  It's fine for their purposes, but Maps does not accept descriptions in the name field.

 

If polygon editing ever returns to Maps then you could add an unnamed parking polygon to visually show people there is parking at the location.  But unnamed points serve no purpose on the map.

 

Regarding the Beach designation, Maps currently lets one only edit POIs who's category are in a specific subset commonly referred to as the Establishment subset.  Beach is in another subset.  As more advanced editing becomes available it will hopefully become an option, but it is in fact incorrectly used in the example you found.  Just as a point feature representing a parking lot needs a proper name, so does a beach.  The name of the access trail is not the name of the beach.  Do you know if there is a name for the beach?

Flash - LG Connect Moderator, Maps Platinum Product Expert, Map Maker Platinum Product Expert, RER and Regional Lead

Due to the volume I receive, I do not respond to unsolicited private messages

Level 7

Re: I can't a photo to a "Add a New Place" on the Desktop version of Maps

I see what you are saying.   Other people are making the same additions I did, marking the parking lots and the Access separately.  I guess, incorrectly.

 

In answer to your question, Yes.  That particular beach is Wrightsville Beach, which is also the name of the township, which includes the inland (Harbor Island) and the true barrier island facing the waves (Wrightsville Beach).

 

But that gets trickier because the beaches here are named after historic townships and/or islands, sorta.  So in some places you can end up with "one" beach that stretches for miles, with a center point that's pretty inaccurate in placement of any particular POI, such as that Access 4.  There, the center point for the "sandy" beach would likely be a mile or two south, and for the township would be actually be inland.  In fact, it would the same beach for the link in this post (Access 43) as it is for Access 4, probably 3 miles apart.  

 

The next beach to the south (across the inlet of water) is named Masonboro Island, which isn't in a township, but does actually have CAMA federally regulated Public Beach Accesses.

 

The next landmass to the south is called collectively Federal Point, and is probably 10 miles long of beaches.

The first beach at the top (across the next inlet) is Carolina Beach actually, but called Freeman Park on the map because it's actually old heir property leased by the township, continuing into Carolina Beach within the township of Carolina Beach.

But in between the townships of Carolina Beach and Kure Beach (the only two townships) there were other beaches, including Wilmington Beach, named for the major town to the north by 10 miles.  The area was absorbed / incorporated, but the beaches remain.  Though that's sorta a historic relic, and most people wouldn't notice that the beaches can actually have different names than the townships in places.

 

It's a freaking mess of names.  Probably why people say, "meet me at Access 4."