As I have been working on a proposal for a newly organized restrictions page (I will start a thread on that separately when ready to review), I thought it would be good to have a template that stored all the ranks related to locks and other rank items that we have. That way we can use the template to state what rank is required for any restriction and if that changes in the future, it is a single edit and all pages are updated. I see we already have our first conflict as noted below I found two different references for rank being 5 or 3 on RTCs.
This template would also make it easier for editors who don’t remember the specific rank requirements. The doc page for the template would also describe how to best use the template in a sentence for best wording flow.
I plan to have the template work with the following format:
Template:
{{Rank|parameter}}
Example:
The minimum rank required to edit a place without moderation is {{Rank|PlaceTrusted}}. Note that all ranks below {{Rank|PlaceAutoTrust}} must have {{Rank|PlaceEdits}} place edits before they can become "trusted" (edit without moderation).
Template parameter - Current returned information - Description
Closure - 3 - Minimum rank to create or edit a road closure including adding it to an MTE. (I see we already have a page out of sync with 5 proving we need this template.)
JB - 5 - Minimum rank to create or edit a junction box.
PlaceAutoTrust - 2 - Minimum rank to not require multiple edits to become trusted
PlaceEdits - unpublished - Number of place edits required to be trusted
PlaceExternal - 3 - Minimum rank to add an external provider to a place
MTE - 1 - Minimum rank to create or edit an MTE
I found this in the current wiki. If true, I thought this was important to include since it might change in the future. If wrong, we can correct the number and have more reason to include it.
Routing - 4 - Minimum rank to change preferred or unpreferred routing on a segment.
City - 4 - Minimum rank to create a new city (not add an existing city to an object).
Snapshot - 4 - Minimum rank to enter snapshot mode.
Server - 4 - Minimum rank to see the server selector on the main WME display.
On the RTC issue noted in the OP, I think I may have found the source of the discrepancy.
In this section of the Wiki, it says that RTCs can be entered based on one of two criteria: 1) the editor is rank 5, or 2) the editor is granted RTC control over all segments in an area regardless of their lock rank. So we have two possible answers for the minimum lock rank for an RTC assuming that content is true.
Given it is true, we can update the entry for Closure as follows:
Closure - 5 or be granted RTC control - minimum rank to create or edit a road closure including adding it to an MTE.
Example:
The minimum rank required to close roads in WME is rank {{Rank|Closure}}.
I believe that this is no longer accurate. It used to be rank 5 about 1 1/2 years ago. Now rank 3 and higher can put RTC on any segment that is locked at their rank or lower. The last part is still correct, someone (usually a CCP) can be granted special permission and enter RTC on any lock level.
JMM is correct, it’s well known (although, apparently not well documented) among state managers and the like that our CCP partners are given special closure permissions for a specific area. They usually are R1. In the days before R3s were able to enter closures, some RCs would grant a trusted R3 permission to enter closures within their AM area. The drawback of that was that the R3 could close any segment, regardless of lock level. This practice, to the best of my knowledge, is less common now.
We have the minimum rank to be able to enter RTC (which appears to be 3 now). However, the editor can only affect roads locked at their rank or lower like all other concurrent lock types.
We have the ability for leadership in a community to grant special RTC area control meaning they can access the RTC (regardless of their rank) and close any road (regardless of the road lock rank).
Assuming this is true, we just need to note something that if you have RTC control, you are not bound by the concurrent lock restriction when the segment lock rank exceeds your own.
A. Do we want to say this is typically only provided to CCP members at the discretion of the RC, or do we not want to provide anything specific outside of contact your RC?
B. Should we make RC more generic with “state leadership” instead?
I would just leave it at discretion of the RC and not mention the CCP part. I learned today that we have a couple editors that have been given RTC rights in larger areas. I also learned that the RTC rights are not edit area restricted. A person can be given RTC rights to areas they may not have other edit rights to.
A) CCP members are granted that privilege by staff, to the best of my knowledge, the RC has no direct control, although, it’s likely that the RC can affect the partner’s continued participation–but that’s another subject altogether. That being said, given that the practice of granting special closure permissions was rare before the adjustment, and virtually unheard of now, I would be inclined to leave that discussion to contact the RC.
B) State leadership would be an acceptable generic term, as state managers generally have input into these decisions. However, as I see JM6087 was posting at the same time, I wouldn’t be opposed to leaving the term as (A)RC or some variation thereof.
I may have rank hold the “90” and then embed it into the DriveExpiration template already in use so we don’t have to change it. That way Rank would return “90” and DriveExpiration would return “90 days” as it does now.
The new {{Rank}} template is complete. The template pages holds the documentation on how to use the template and what parameters are accepted.
Next I will start integrating this template into all the pages that directly reference the rank of editors.
I decided against including the DriveExpiration template into this one since this one is directly related to ranks, and that one is different enough from ranks that is didn’t make sense. However, the two doc pages link each other in the See Also sections.
I also made the other RTC Area changes noted above on the RTC page.
I see we often talk about AM status requires rank 3 or greater. Since this template is not truly Lock Rank, and instead is simply Rank, I will go ahead and add that AM minimum to the template as well. I realize it is possible that someone at rank 2 could be given access, but that would be a situation determined by the RC/state leadership to grant. The AM page/section could easily discuss that possibility irrespective of our adding the min rank for AM status.
I just noticed we say Forcing house number saves requires rank 2 or higher. I have added this to the [[Minimum DAB]] page and also added it to the {{rank}} template.