I would advise everyone here to read the existing pinned topic about handling URs in NY. That policy, while vague in some areas, has never been superseded. I’m not saying it is set in stone, this discussion is good and can contribute toward changing it. But it behooves us to know what the baseline is before we propose changes. Yes, it should have carried into the wiki long ago, but that’s the way it is, and nobody ever fixed that until now.
I agree that it is vital to bring initial editor response up. That said, I’m sorry, russ, but 4+4 doesn’t cut it here. I don’t know if it is the mentality of our driers or something else, but many editors have found responses to work on long-dormant URs, even where there was an initial editor response that was ignored. Perhaps we have a lot of drivers who only use Waze infrequently. In rural areas where you may have an actual problem but not enough driver density to get multiple reports for it, we need to give them a chance.
OTOH, we know that we can’t leave every UR open long-term. I saw suggestions of a potential NYC versus rest of state standard, but it is deeper than that.
KTCAOP, I understand what you are trying to propose with 4+4 vs 4+4+4. Bu I don’t really see any need for 3 follow-ups just to bring the reminder down to 4 days, with one particular exception (see below). Honestly, I just see the 4 day versus 7 day debate as one of “how fast can we close this” versus “how long is safe to assume the user should have opened the app and seen a notification since initial response.” Also, as far as “butting in,” there’s something to be said for allowing the initial responder a chance to retain ownership, especially for newer editors who are still in the honeymoon stage.
Here’s how I deal with it personally (and not always in compliance with standards). I look at UR density. If I have very few URs in a large area, then there’s no harm in leaving them open long-term. If there are a great many URs in a small area, then getting them closed out is very important for several reasons: 1) It may indicate a problem, we need to attack the URs aggresively. 2) WME will slow down if there are too many URs. 3) WME will not display all URs if there are too many in a certain area. 4) It is hard to manage overlapping URs. 5) It is hard to read the map overall when there are so many URs.
So we really need three rules, nothing to do with NYC. Low density, normal density, and high density (which will naturally cover much but not all of NYC and other high-traffic areas). We’ll have to define what Low/normal/high mean, and we’ll have to develop a policy for each.
A strawman for discussion:
-
low density: less than 5 URs at zoom 2. Response+7 reminder+6 months to close. Must have one final reminder within 7 days of closing unless there have been >3 reminders already and at least one in the last 30 days. Stretch goal of response in 2 days, but in rural areas, we know that response within 2 weeks is more likely, and many will not even meet that due to coverage issues.
-
high density: more than 5 URs at zoom 6 or more than 10 at zoom 5. Response+4 to remind+4 to close. Goal is first response within 1 day, and to try to hit the 4+4 as consistently as possible (i.e., close within 9 days of report).
-
normal density: anything else. Response+7 to remind+minimum 7 to close, but no need to be overly strict about getting it closed. Stretch goal of response within 1 day, but 2 days is fine, and 3 within reason.
Some secondary policies within this strawman to modify the above: 1) If there is a tight cluster of URs sent over a period of 3 days or more, then there is a potential unaddressed problem. Aggressively visit the site (daily) and respond to every UR as quickly as possible. Until the problem is clarified: Reminders every 4 days even in normal/low density areas, and allow up to 30 days before closing even in high/normal density areas. 2) If a UR is due for a reminder or closure but was initially responded to by someone else then 2a) if the action is less than 4 days overdue, PM the initial responder, 2b) if the reminder is 5-7 days overdue then post a friendly reminder that acknowledges the original responder (even if it was due for closure), 2c) if action >7 days past due, don’t worry about the initial responder. 3) If you see a UR responded to by someone else that you think you have an approach to solving that the original responder does not seem to recognize, then 3a) if there was already a reminder sent, and there is a risk that the initial responder may close the UR before you can work on it, respond nicely that you may have a solution that you will work with {original responder} on to fix the problem, then PM the original responder with your suggestion and/or with a request to take over; if no response to PM within 4 days, you may take over at will. 3b) If there is no initial reminder, same applies, but initially only send the PM, without posting a response in the UR.
All the above may seem complex, but I don’t think there’s a one-size-fits-all approach that works well. And this is just a strawman to get the discussion going. You may all hate the whole thing. Or you may like it but come to a consensus that it needs tweaking. In case you haven’t guessed it, the aboe is close to my own practices, but that doesn’t mean it is necessarily the best overall solution.