Earlier this year there were a few URs raised around the Heathrow Airport area due to various errors in the place details - namely the wrong terminal names being given to places, causing users to be routed into the central area when they were trying to reach T4 or vice versa.
Myself and a few other editors cleaned up all of these errors and, AFAIK, uplocked all the affected places to minimise the risk of future errors.
So how the hell has the area place for T2 managed to get renamed as Terminal 4??? It’s showing as having been most recently edited by a L1 editor on June 10th, yet is also locked to L4.
Is there some loophole by which a lower-ranked editor can still alter place details even if it’s locked way, way above their paygrade? Or is this just another example of WME giving misleading information to editors - i.e. L1 user submits a PUR to get the place name changed, PUR is then accepted by an editor ranked high enough to do so (and if that is the case, they need a stiff talking to - NO L4+ editor should be accepting a PUR at such a high profile location without making doubly, triply, infinitely certain that the details are correct), but it’s the name of the PUR submitter rather than the PUR approver that gets attached to the place object?
Almost as bad, the reason I noticed this is because there’s a PUR for this place in my feed, but the PUR is a suggestion to rename it as T5… On closer inspection, there’s a further 3 PURs here all suggesting it’s instead renamed to T3. Either there are some seriously stupid users out there who can’t read the bloody huge signage outside the building telling them it’s terminal 2, or (perhaps more likely) something is really quite badly wrong with how PURs are handled by the app, causing users to be misled into thinking they’re providing new details for one place when those details end up generating PURs for a different place.
So as an aside to this query over how the T2 place got its details buggered up despite our best efforts to protect it, can I also request that my fellow London editors help me to keep a close eye on the place details here. I suspect Heathrow ranks amongst one of the more popular destination searches for users in this part of the UK - particularly those from overseas who don’t know the area well enough to realise they’re being misdirected - and any errors in routing to the selected terminal may lead to some real difficulties for the user. At the very least, it doesn’t look good for us if people think the UK map data can’t be relied on to navigate them correctly to somewhere like Heathrow.
If I remember correctly, if an R1 or another editor makes a suggestion to a change, that will go to a PUR. Regardless of whoever approves the PUR, I believe will show the original person who made the suggestion get the edit credit.
Edit - I have just tested this myself, after accepting the PUR, the original credit to the change (last edited by) will show whoever suggested the change, not approved it.
This means most likely an L4 editor or above (including Waze Bots) most likely approved the change, but the original L1, etc. editor was the one that made the suggestion.
KTCAOP, thanks for testing that - this is a cause for concern then, particularly since in this case it’s clearly a high-ranked editor who’s responsible for messing up what I know was valid data, but WME gives us no way to tell who it was…
Tim, I thought IGNs were only the equivalent of a L3? If that’s not correct, and it was an IGN responsible for this, then it’s yet another example of their total and utter incompetence. I’ve just fund the IGN thread in the WME forum again, and I note with dismay that our colleagues over in the States are also now complaining about mass PUR cleansing presumably being carried out by IGNs with no thought for correctness, and with the same resultant problem of other editors being “credited” with the update.
Leaving aside who got this particular PUR completely wrong, the question still stands over why T2 has so many other PURs all suggesting it be renamed to something equally as incorrect…
I haven’t been around for a month so missed your first message on this but noticed today that again T2 was incorrectly marked as T5 with a suggestion that it should be named T4!
I have renamed correctly as T2 and edited slightly so that the terminal landmark doesn’t cover the drop off area / car park that has another area place and also a separate place point for the drop off area however Waze wouldn’t save as it said the marker was too far from the area place. Upon zooming out I found the destination point was over at T5 which is 1.7 miles away as the crow (or even a 747) flies! :lol:
How did that get there, I’ve only been able to set a destination point a few yards outside area places but it may explain why it was getting named as T5 but not why some plonkers seem to want to rename to T4 unless they are up to mischief? :roll:
Again last editor is marked as a L1 two days ago and the proposed renaming is from a L1 today.
I’ve also noticed that there is a new feature (I haven’t been around for a month so have some catching up to do in the forum) that links to a Google place as an external provider, could this be causing an issue?
Oh FFS, I’d only just cleaned up this area before I went off on holiday last week, so in the space of a few days it’s once again been vandalised by someone with enough editing rights to know better.
Thanks Andy for fixing it again, be nice if we didn’t have to waste so much time fixing stuff that really shouldn’t need fixing over and over again…
May reduce the list of editors who can approve the L1’s suggestions, but will also mean you’ll need to raise a thread/msg another L5 to correct it in the future
T5 and T5 Pod parking Place markers were working great for me on Friday when I needed them for an early morning trip. (speed limit for the M25 exit ramp needs updating, though, so I’ll do that)
Are you sure they are wrong, I know I have probably managed to take them at 85mph whilst being left behind by most other vehicles but I think the posted 40mph limit is correct.
Most likely that means that it was update within the application and thus was sent to be a PUR and them someone doing a sweep of PURs just approved them.
I don’t wish to point blame but I do love to tell tales… I did see an IGN editor clear up pretty much all the outstanding place updates across london a few days ago. I only noticed as I was plodding through the ones I could confirm at the time and then they all seem to vanish.
Personally then I feel that the IGN editors are doing the job that IGN editors are doing.
If we don’t review the PUR’s ourselves, then they will be evaluated by the IGN third party =/.
And I personally know that I have been really, really lax on PUR’s because I am still behind on UR’s, but even then, I put PUR’s as pretty low priority, I’m not sure how to change that mentality because PUR’s and UR’s are both incredibly overwhelming, but yeah.
Which is fair enough, if the IGNs restrict themselves to only clearing up stuff that the regular editing team has left unattended for a suitable period of time.
However, given all of the problems that Heathrow has been seeing recently, I’m sure I’m not the only local editor who’s been paying closer attention to this area than we might otherwise have been doing - according to my editing profile page, I last dealt with any outstanding PURs here 7 days ago, and since Stu flagged up this problem on Sunday, this means the PUR responsible for causing the name change could have been no more than 5-6 days old at the time it was approved…
And regardless of how new or old this or any other UR/MP/PUR is that gets dealt with by an IGN, surely the goal of IGNs ought to be to help the local teams in maintaining the map data? Coming into an area and blanket-approving/solving/closing off every marker they see on the map at that point in time, is NOT helping to maintain the map. At best it simply gives a false impression that things are OK in an area by effectively brushing all of the reports under the virtual rug without really doing anything to address their root causes, and at worst it causes data errors to creep into parts of the map that the local editing team thought were in perfect shape. Look at how many times we’ve had to repair problems at Heathrow caused by rogue PURs being approved by someone (and without the benefit of any detailed edit history tracking, we’re just guessing that it’s been IGNs at work here), and this is just one site in one city in one country where we know 100% valid data is being screwed up by bad PUR approvals - how many more such sites are there that we haven’t yet noticed?
Today brings yet another PUR to have T2 renamed to T5, and I also note that yesterday someone tried to flag up T4 as a residential place…
Yeah, this is the problem with PURs - we can’t tell by looking at the associated place who approved a PUR, and we don’t have the option of viewing closed off PURs in the same way as we do with URs and MPs.
Found similarly problematic issues @ gatwick. south-terminal long stay was named “Short stay” and north terminal long stay was reclassified as a prison/detention centre.
I also harmonised the naming to “Gatwick [North|South] Terminal [Short|Long] Stay Parking”
and I added a few more linked google places (limit seems to be 5 per waze place. boo). we may be able to retire the road-to-nowhere hack since all the search-as-you-type and search results are now covered by waze places. Only if you then go onto switch to the google results tab do you get the lonely “Gatwick airport” destination in the middle of the runway.
