My practice has been 7/7. I’m okay with a shorter minimum standard but will probably continue to use 7/7 if it goes shorter as I also edit in NJ and PA.
Again, if we shorten the minimum from 7+7, it’s something we have to agree upon within the community; otherwise, another editor can close your UR after like 4 days (or whatever) even though your intention was to wait to 7. I, however, continue to believe that changing our general - and let me emphasize - in general - minimum from 7 days is not necessary. So really, there are a few points we need to make sure are abundantly clear in the wiki text:
- No UR should be closed without at least 2 requests for further information from the user, unless you can confidently figure out (not to be confused with guessing) what the user was reporting and fix it as they would be expecting. Typically this would be a call for more information ASAP from when the report is submitted, and a reminder if no response is received within 7 days.
- There should not be any further activity, again, unless you can confidently fix it as the reporter would be expecting, on any UR in which the last comment was by any editor less than 7 days ago.
- There is no permanent ownership of any URs by any one editor. When you respond to a UR, Waze automatically subscribes you to updates to that UR by checking the box to follow it. That means you will be notified if the reporter (or anyone) responds, giving you the balance to 7-days chance to fix the situation, or reset the clock by asking further questions. Otherwise, on the 7th day, the UR becomes fair game for any editor to respond to for advancement.
Does this make sense to everyone?
BTW, I always thought that UR stood for User Report. Is that wrong?
I always through it was User Request…
User request, user report all of which are map issues … who cam up with that correlation…
Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
I think most of us have adopted the 7+7 for handling URs. The conversation was two fold though one there was older guidance that said 4+4, and we also wanted to think about the whole NYC issue as we still struggle with volume there to number of active editors and didnt know if a shorter standard should be in place. Basically we like to formalize what we are already doing in practice. But with your work here plus the older conversations I think we are close to finalizing wording.
And why cant it just be Map Issue to match what the driver sees in their app?
Technically UR stands for “Update Request” - Given the option in the drop down menu of the Layers Menu and the Wiki Entry. But I mean… saying user report, user request, or otherwise, we all know what each other means.
This is going well. Russblau’s proposal mostly matches the other posts in teh thread, except 1) for filling in the number of days, 2) possible disagreement with his last paragraph that gives priority to the original responder, and 3) perhaps some ambiguity for the start of the final countdown before NOT IDENTIFIED, i.e., start from the original report date, the first comment date, or the last comment date.
Ok I think we should try and reignite this conversation again, with the recent invention of the Speed Limit Update Requests (SL URs). At this time I think everyone has seen a significant uptick in the number of URs sepcificaly related to speed limits. Maryland has apparently adopted guidelines specific for these - MD SL URs Policy Since their new guidelines are significantly shorter than our recommended guidelines of 7 & 7. I feel this needs discussion and agreement first.
For discussion and I welcome feedback I propose
For Speed Limit Update Requests ONLY NY adopt a 2 & 2 approach so that we attempt to respond to SL URs as quickly as possible and close within a week. This would be a temporary policy until we feel that speed limits in the State of New York are complete/comprehensive enough or that the rate of the SL URs has decreased enough to allow for normal practice with them.
Rational
-Significant increase in URs will burden the editors, and in areas like NYC we already struggle with density issues allowing WME to load all the URs
-Likelihood of a driver remembering details a week later is low
-Weekend warrior concept would require the driver to drive the same route
-Less impact that wrong turn for short term purposes
We would still continue to follow the practice of examining each UR, verify street view, and reaching out for clarification, just be accelerating the timeline. Further it is important to educate the drivers on what is a legal speed limit sign in the process so a short blurb about advisory speed limits should be included as appropriate.
I appreciate any thoughts? And of course we could always get the state guidance for how to handle URs finalized while we are discussing this too.
I have never used the formal UR guidelines for the PL URs. I have always used a I added it response for any that get added and close solved and already added reply for ones that are on the map and close NI but that was before the new UR options placed in the app. Thanks John (JS) for bring this up, JD
Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
I’ve been processing on the 7/7 standard but I do like the idea of expediting SLUR’s as they are relatively simple to resolve (normally). Most that I encounter are simply that it is missing however I have run into them being reported as 25MPH vs 30 MPH as from my testing it today, is not a pre-selectable option (I saw 25/35/55 and other the 4 times I tried)
The issue with that is most SLs are being generated off of WSV. Using WSLM is nice as it posts the editors name and direction where as the SLUR just spits out “25 MPH” anonymously.
Other suggestion for speed of clearing SLURs would be that they show as a different color than all the other URs so that they stick out as SLURs and not another issue.
Kyle
I don’t feel that SL URs are different enough from any other URs to warrant special handling. Are there so many of them that we can document how they’re impacting the performance of WME? That’s the reason we expedite URs in hyper-urban areas like NYC.
If the SL UR has everything you need to know, correct the map and close the UR with a fixed message. If it does not, then ask the reporter what you need to know. Then the standard 7-day turn-around for a response would apply, right?
Again, the whole point of the UR system and its comments is to attempt to solicit as much local feedback as is necessary to correct unexpected situations (what we call exceptions, in the trade), when it’s practical and possible to do so, or explaining a workaround/recommendation if not. In my mind, a key component to that is to allow a fair response time to all prompts, questions, or comments. This isn’t about being the first area to 0 URs, or even 0 SL URs, but rather, it’s about harvesting as much local knowledge that is offered to us as we can.
My Issue with the SL URs is that if there is no way to verify the report where does that leave us.
Do we now start to take the word of the reporter.
I am not sure we can do that because even if there intentions are Nobile how do we know if what they think is correct.
I think the SL UR reporting was a mistake that I don’t see a fix for.
Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
I would like to see us rap up the thread as far as the policy for dealing with General URs seeing we are mostly in agreement and get the consensus into our wiki. As for the SL URs we can continue to express our theories seeing as it is a fairly new thing
Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
I agree that we should try to move forward on getting a consensus and maybe leave the SLURs out of this discussion. Currently.
I am in favor with 7&7 and really at this time lets just do statewide including NYC. I don’t think we need guidance about who owns the reports other than simple guidance that first editor should be given a friendly nudge if nothin been done recently.
In terms of SLURs the only thing I say is that I have seen frequently large clusters of them that I have taken at face value in the setting of either old street view. They are difficult and we need to think more about them but I have found quite regularly clusters of URs around speed limit changes that we don’t have correct so it’s more handling the volume that I find problematic.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I also agree with Johnsninja58 on moving forward and getting the consensus.
I am in favor of 7 & 7. This allows the reporter enough time to respond to the UR comment. We all know that a lot of them are more like a weekend warrior and only see the comments we post every once in a while. With this being said, We give them more time to help us in solving issues while also keeping the total number of UR’s down to a minimum.
So after a quick read back it seems like our community is largely in agreement with a 7 plus 7 policy… How do we get this past the powers that be and into our state wiki…
By the way… With the exception of the newbie editor not much has been closed in under 14 days anyway, but it still would be best that we get the wiki to match our protocol…
Thanks JD
My bet would be get Craig and Brent to comment or to give the go ahead on this. Then we would need to get someone like PZ or another wiki writer involved, after getting the approvals, to have them written into the NY wiki.
How about you draft the changes to your own wiki space - you can save all kinds of things under your own user page in the wikis, right? - and then post a link to the NY forum for review? Then when we get consensus on the language and all those goodies, we can apply the change to the wiki.
Per request, I have created a google document for this to be reviewed. Please take a look and leave comments on what everyone thinks and what they might like to see changed or added.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tZDZxAH5NWkUcDLCxJ_zJymIuCVxIYoy3yobaUcGDpQ/edit?usp=sharing
This is also on my wiki user page.