Nation wide Lock level standard?

Map Editors Community United States
1

I just wanted to make sure if this has been discussed and a final decision has been made with the US/NA making FC changes nationwide.

Has a set lock level standard been agreed upon or recognized as the standard for the US? What I am understanding is the following:

PM= Primary Street mH=Minor Highway MH=Major Highway

  • PM/mH= L2
  • MH= L3
  • Freeway/Ramps= L4

What I feel is a good lock level is the following:

  • PM= L2
  • mH/MH= L3
  • Freeway/Ramps= L4

Your thoughts?

[Edit]
Almost forgot to add Railroads. What is a recommend lock level for railroads?

2

In another thread (I cannot look up at the moment), gettingthere had a similar proposal that I was OK with except pushing to have Freeway/ramp higher, but I could easily be talked down to Rank 4 if that was the group consensus.

3

I remember gettingthere mentioning this in the California FC thread. I’ve sent a pm to ask if he can
chime in on this as well. I wanted to post this in the Editor page, but I felt it is better in the USA section. Sadly, it isn’t getting as many views as I’d hoped.

4

I’m not certain that a national standard is appropriate.

  1. There are still areas with no editors. For such areas, Freeways need to be at a lower level. The unlock mechanism is too cumbersome for extensive, ongoing editing. There needs to be someone local who can easily reach a rank that can maintain the roads.

  2. There is a very uneven density of the lower road. In some areas, one third or more of the local streets are minor highway or more.

  3. Rank 2 is near useless as a lock

  4. We’ve just recently moved toward Functional Classification forcing roads that do not look at all like a highway to become mH and even MH. Whether you agree to that approach or not, the designations serve to give the routing engine more choices or more consistency in choices of longer distance routes. It shouldn’t necessarily follow that this is needed for their lock levels as well. If a local 2-lane shopping strip is MH because that’s what the FC says, do we really want to force it up to the AM lock rank? Or do we want to allow most editors to edit it?

  5. As the traffic volume locks are coming into play soon, do we really need to worry about manual road locks at all anymore?

5

As I mentioned in the California thread, since running a trial for FC since last October, Michigan has had numerous downgrades in urban areas where minor arterials are set to minor highways and only locked at 2. Through experimentation, a lock at 3 instead of 1 or 2 has been much more appropriate to prevent downgrades for both mH and MH. This may certainly depend on the local editing community and word association, but people have tended to focus too much on the word “highway”–as in “This 30mph road through the middle of a city is not a ‘highway’. It’s much more suitable as a Primary Street or Street”. Numerous newer editors or those who may be active 2+ but don’t follow the forums or wiki need some time to be educated in the new FC system. The time that it takes to get to 1,000 edits and upgrade to rank 2 often is not enough to get over the initial shock of so much red and yellow where it doesn’t seem appropriate at face value. This obviously may settle down more over time though where a mH at 2 would be appropriate.

I think that there could be value in lowering freeway to 4 in that it would lighten the load on 5+ editors for changes (particularly keeping up with construction or closure edits). On the other hand, it allows tinkering where certain things may have been edited correctly already. As a tinkerer (sometimes to the chagrin of my RC), I could go either way.

Railroads should be locked at 5 or as high as a local editor can lock them.

Also, let’s not forget Traffic Locks coming at some point. How does or should this factor in to manual locking decisions? Depending on the Waze population in an area and a few other factors, there are sections of freeway that would be traffic locked at 5 anyway while other sections would need a manual lock of 4 or 5 due to low usage. The same could be said of other road types.

EDIT: I love it when there are new posts that I don’t see while I’m drafting one.

Great point! As bad as I made mH at 2 sound above, it is true that the great majority of mH and even MH left at 1 have been untouched. That’s because there are much fewer drivers and no active editors in many areas. Even in a metro area, the impact is small when you have rank 1 and 2 editors making changes simply because their drive area is so small. While the re-work has often been a nuisance (we have not treated it as an educational PM with a “here’s what to fix and why” and instead just re-upgraded immediately), downgrades have typically been caught within a few days and fixed. So, it becomes a question of how to balance infrequent, bad edits with encouraging good editors who may start in an area. If you have more of an active editing community, it may not be a big deal to leave FC-classed arterials at a lower lock level or not lock at all because someone can just jump in and clean up. If you edit in an area where you may be the only active one, I could easily see you advocating for higher locks to protect the work you’ve done. That makes it difficult to set a standard nationally as qwaletee brought up.

6

I could support either proposal as a standard. Yes, I also agree that in some areas that are not well edited (likely mostly areas of our major cities) this is going to make it frustrating for lower ranked editors to clean up the entire area. And of course there will always be exceptions.

We also need to keep in mind that Waze has proposed and is trying out in several countries automatic locks based on utilization of the road. The initial feedback that I have seen says that most roads are locked at a higher level than what is being proposed here. We may have an opportunity here to standardize locking in the USA on FC and tell Waze that we are not interested in them deploying automatic locking based on Wazer volume. In reality if the local / state governments are standardizing properly on FC the results should be similar.

As always, there needs to be a balance between protecting the map from vandalism, protecting the map from editors who are very new and don’t know the standards, as well as allowing well intentioned editors to contribute. Is is very difficult with the current locking system to do all of these things. I do agree that lock level of 2 is not of much value in protecting things.

I do believe that this is an excellent time to make some type of country-wide standard as we are embarking on a major project to update the Waze map in the USA to FC. This is also a good time to consider protecting some of these higher ranked roads since as a higher FC they carry more traffic and are more critical for Waze routing. We do want to make sure the roads that are updated for FC do not get downgraded by uninformed editors.

One of the biggest issue I see with any locking strategy is the mapping of parking lots. Obviously the parking lot roads will not be able to be junctioned to the road by editors that don’t have the proper rank. It is not feasible to deal with these issues via the unlock request forum. IMO there should be minimal mapping of Parking Lots but what I see around my area is exactly the opposite. So if we as a community agree that in most cases Parking Lot roads don’t need to be mapped the issues with locking should be less.

7

Perhaps now that level 3 has been upped to needing 25k edits, level 2 should go up to 5-10k edits needed?

I feel level 2 locking should be valuable. Stuff that you want most people to edit, but not greenhorns.

8

Great discussion. I thought I would throw in a few points here…

(1) Standards are enticing and needed, but don’t cripple one power of Waze – it’s ability to adapt to local needs.

I would say that a any Nation-Wide standard on locks should be guidance, not rule. Those above mentioning that the USA is not one uniform standard location are right. Some places have few editors and some have many. Some places are simple while others have very complex road and Place content that took a long time to get right. A fixed standard could prevent good editing of things locked too much as well as open up to damage some things that should be locked higher than the standard.

(2) Remember when you were a new editor and you couldn’t edit some items? Frustrating? Don’t lock things too much everywhere because we want to encourage editors, not drive them away because they are frustrated with nothing to edit because it is all locked.

I do agree that National Guidance on locking would be a nice thing – as long as it was VERY CLEAR that local discretion on locks for specific reasons would override such issues AND guidance to to downgrade locks without first contacting the local editors. We don’t want bureaucratic zealot lock standard CM editors and visitors to change things without local consult.

Edit: I forgot to mention that I think lock also has to do with the amount of effort and research put into an area. For instance, researching Freeway ramp names takes a long time. Fixing an intersection that is highly complex so it works well takes a lot of time. This is why I am just fine with Freeways being locked at Rank-5 and really complex areas being locked at Rank-5. Road/Areal differences might be locked higher. Another area is construction zones that might be locked at Rank-6 because the areals do not match and the change is frequent.

9

I also agree on locking more freeways and ramps at level 4 to help level 5-6’s deal with more pressing issues.

Right now in NM we’re locking Major highways at 3, Minor at 2, freeways at 4-5. Some primary streets through towns I’ve set at 2.

10

I should note that I am currently using San Diego, CA as a ‘test case’ with the following guidelines for apx. 1 week now:

PM= Primary Street mH=Minor Highway MH=Major Highway

PM/mH= L2
MH= L3
Freeway/Ramps= L4

11

A couple of recent experiences make me feel that this sentiment is probably correct. I’ve seen a level 2 editor make a freckled mess in a fairly large area of a state - so much so that the RCs had to escalate to a temporary suspension. Looking into it just a bit further and realized that the user was likely able to get to a level 2 by simply mapping numerous parking lots in great outline detail. This of course draws little attention in a fairly maturely mapped area. Another level 2 editor feels obliged to map every street that has a center median (and some that don’t) as 2 separate one-way streets. They even went so far as to re-do an unsplit that I had just done because they were unaware of the editing guidelines.
Anything done “nationally” should be done as guidelines with the ability for local override - but that assumes that there is a way for local overrides to be administered in more than guideline fashion.
It seems like there are 2 distinct issues: importance of the road traveled, and the number of locally active qualified editors. The first seems quite easy, but for the second, there’s no way to quantify it.
What would make this discussion a lot easier was if there was a way for editors to make relatively simple connections to roads locked at a higher level without changing the behaviors of “thru” traffic, but still allow completion of edits on the connecting road.

12

I partly agree with you on this. With parking lots, I feel that if it can be mapped, draw it. However, not all parking lots will be mapped the same. Small lots that are adjacent to a street, PM, mH, etc, and the lot is a small strip or a tiny box, then a simple two-way segment is enough. If the lot is larger, then a quick outline of the outer perimeter of the lot is enough. The lot should be mapped just enough to allow Waze to recognize you have turned into the lot of the destination and if you are in the lot of a starting point.

Great example. Take this store/building. The parking lot is just some small strip.
parking lot example 02.jpg

Just adding a simple small segment would, IMO, give a better routing. If you start Waze, it will know you are in the lot. If you are going to this destination, then you will know that you will have to make a simple right hand turn instead of being told your at your destination which is somewhere to your right.
parking lot example 03.jpg

As for establishing a nationwide lock level system, I think this discussion is proving that the US/NA is a fickle beast and wouldn’t do well with an auto-lock system. As some of you have commented, there are a lot of areas that do not have any active, or lack, editors. This would have an effect should a lock standard be established.

If this is a concern, then I propose this “lock standard” be handled the same way managing the US was handled. Establish lock standards based on region by the Regional Coordinator. The RC would know be the person to gather information from their responsible states and establish a standard.

If anything, this could be a better solution. Have all the RC’s post in each state asking what the local editors feel is a good lock standard. If enough states in their region have a similar view, than that standard could be applied regionally. If there is a large discrepancy between the states, then the closest standard would have to be agreed on by a vote so as not to have lock standards per-state.

I think the RC’s managing and establishing a lock standard is a more sound choice next to a national standard. The more we talk about this, the more we can convince Waze to steer clear of Auto-locks in the US. Participation and involvement are key and we are showing that we are doing this.

13

Also,
I feel that a very important issue is the lack of localized communication with Waze editors. Yes, editors starting out will not be able to attach segments to roads and will have to look for help to finish it. It can be annoying. But there are tools to find this, Validator, so there shouldn’t really be an issue with this unless the area lacks active editors.

Waze really needs to push for establishing better communication between editors on a local level. Yes there is the forums and the chat, but no everyone wants to use the a chat room that covers the entire US and have to hunt for a comment.

That is why many States, like AZ and NJ, have started an individual Google+ or Facebook page to focus on editing and communication for that state.

But, this is for another topic and will stop here to keep the focus on lock levels.

rant end

14

Just to clarify, what is meant by your use of “auto-lock”? Are you talking about traffic locks or the proposed standard in this thread that would automatically lock a road based on type?

Even at the regional level, I’m not sure that you would have consensus for locking guidelines unless you allow for exceptions. Even at the state level, I’m not sure that you could get consensus. Assuming that the number of active editors in an area is proportional to the Waze user community, you may be able to get some consensus for urban areas at the regional or state level, but there are still a lot of untouched areas in the US that simply would never need a high lock even for higher road types. It’s not necessarily because you wouldn’t want to protect the map, it’s just because no one edits there and few people if any drive there.

15

I’m sorry. I meant traffic locks.

16

Sadly, I can not speak for any other state, however, all of us in Arizona have reached a consensus on a statewide lock level standard. We are very active throughout the entire state, daily, which I guess is a somewhat difficult task to achieve.

On our Arizona Google+ group page, we discussed and “agreed” with a lock level standard. We went as far as to take into account the lvl’s of all the active editors in AZ.

Not every state has editors that can dedicate so much time as they have families, jobs, and personal lives to deal with first. I sometimes forget how big the US really is and how many editors it takes to maintain an area since I’m always staring at Arizona.

17

Michigan has reached consensus too for FC arterials and freeway, but it amounts to a handful of editors who are (currently) active in the forums saying that we agree on something. It’s not even the same group from when I started back in September 2013. There are dozens to hundreds of other editors in the state who do not post on or perhaps even read the forums who are active to a degree, but “Qui tacet consentire videtur” :slight_smile: .

18

One thing that I would suggest to make things alittle easier might be to has state unlock request pages for every state so that the unlock request can be managed and found easier then having to go through so many at one time.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

19

This is a great and timely discussion. I too have wondered about the functional meaning of Rank 2 but also that of Rank 4. Near as I can tell, Rank 4 is sort of a “Rank 3+”.

The update/unlock forum is a useful bellwether for how balanced our locking practice has been. I would have expected a bell curve centered on Rank 4, balancing between the larger number of editors with Rank 3 status and the small quantity of Rank 5 segments needing fixing. However it is always heavily weighted towards Rank 5, which suggests that Rank 4 locking is underutilized.

When bored I have speculated why this might be so. An abundance of hapless Rank 4 editors with no means or motivation to politely but firmly downgrade them? A dearth of Rank 4 editors due to some side-effect of the promotion system? But others probably have a better idea.

In any event my perception has been that Rank 4 currently comes with few particular capabilities worth striving for, but at the rate I edit my beard will be to my knees before I make Rank 5. :lol:

With respect, I cannot disagree heartily enough, and I suspect I’m in good company, but perhaps that’s a discussion for another thread.

20

In New Jersey, per request of Orbitc, we are implementing a strict locking policy as follows:

Fwy/MH: R5
mH: R4
PS: R2
Street and lower: unlocked.

R3 is deliberately omitted from this scale, as it is the base rank given to all AMs regardless of their editing proficiency. I’ve been using R3 for things like non-driveable segments, including railroads, or neighborhood anomalies like fire gates or seemingly-random one-way streets in neighborhoods mostly two-way, etc. All AM’s are expected to know this, or at the very least dig deeper before changing such segments when something appears wrong on the surface.

This is partially due to an overcrowding of novice editors in many areas of the state. It is also partially due to supporting Orbitc’s new mentoring program. While most of the formal mentoring is currently focused on new novice editors, R5 editors are encouraged to work with interested mid-rank editors in areas that lack locally-knowledgeable R5 oversight with the goal of becoming proficient enough for elevation to R5. (I, personally, am available to work with anyone in NY (State) or NJ, who wants in. Just say so.)

Also, many of these roads, even though they may be city surface streets, go through longer distances - the stated purpose of FC, and apparently the new purpose of Waze road types as well. Except for Freeways, we have to think of roads less in terms of their capacity, because those attributes have been moved to systems outside of the scope of WME, and instead more in terms of how far they go. Many of these roads, especially in NJ, have many intricate junctions with all kinds of nuances that we cannot expect a basic R3 AM to know very well, regardless if they are documented in detail in the Wiki or not. One innocent mistake because someone didn’t think to check some subtle attribute could easily break routing across an entire city.

We’re not trying to kick people out of being able to edit all these streets now designated as through roads. Rather, we’re saying that you need to spend some time working with us on them - call it informal mentoring, if you will - so that we can show you all the gotchas of those roads - many of which are difficult to both explain and comprehend in prose like the Wikis (and maybe even impossible if you haven’t mastered simpler things first) - before you can make changes to the map that can drastically affect the routes of trips over 5 miles long if not done correctly.

All this being said, it is tough to say the whole country needs to implement such a strict policy. There are lots of areas that need all the help they can get, and maybe even lack enough quality, advanced editors that are locally knowledgeable. It’s easy for us to say we can teach editors, but without enough editors in an area wanting to learn, there’s no one for us to teach. At the same time, it’s tough to say that the whole country needs to implement the same policy, because there are definitely areas of the country overflowing with editors, and even area managers in many cases, along with plenty of advanced editors to ensure navigation along all of the longer roads keeps flowing smoothly.