UR closure procedure came up on a Discord channel and we couldn’t find a good resource for the timeline/procedure we use for responding/reminding/closing URs in NYS. Wazeopedia seems like a logical home for it, as well as perhaps a sticky post here in the NYS Forum. I’d like to propose something like the following for the NYS Wazeopedia page:
This would go under a new section rather than shoehorning into an existing section. It would also be useful I think to incorporate some of the great advice given here:
Let me know if words should tweaked, added, removed, etc and hopefully we can come to a consensus on what to add to our NYS Wazeopedia page to eliminate any UR closure confusion and give some good advice on how to get the best end result (a solved UR).
So I like you original idea, I would just change;
'Attn: <Waze username>
to
'Attn: <Your Waze username>
This is where I get Hung up.
I don’t necessary agree that a UR with trace info, time and Date stamp and a problem identified, like no turn, should be closed if there is no answer.
I have come upon some intersections where due to the fact that no one got to it there were 10 or 20 URs with a no turn identified and trace that backed it up. from the cluster I was able to set the turn restriction, just by using deductive reasoning.
So i feel that all of the above should be done, including the closing statement for these king of URs and then left on the map to see if a cluster forms with in XX numbers of days. If not then close.
Done, I made the modification on the page in my name space.
How would you feel about another bullet point under Closing a UR as Not Identified that says something like:
- Special consideration should be given to URs that have comments, a problem identified, or reasonable Waze routes and/or user traces. In these cases, clusters can potentially form with similar information and the issue can be solved using deductive reasoning. If, after XX days it’s clear that the UR is an isolated incident with insufficient information, the UR can be closed as Not Identified. In these cases it’s always wise to consult with a state manger for guidance.
The XX days would obviously need to be established.
While I think the working with URs guidance would be best suited at a national level, I think there are some challenges to get it adopted quickly so starting here is a great place. Strong start and I hope to see more people adopt that philosophy.
I think we have well established it as our cultural norms that 7+7 is the right approach for handling URs and having this finalize is important.
In terms of URs with tracings, comments, etc. I think historically we used [NOTE] to trend things but now we have map comments, therefore if you have more information such as: tracings, comments, clusters etc. one may consider leaving a map comment. Ive seen clusters that were related to local construction and subsequently had a cluster then cleared out, but may have bordered on the point of adding a restriction.
I absolutely agree that a rush to not close is important, and I think the 7+7 model helps support that. Solving URs is an art and the longer you look at WME the more info you might be able to glean. I was able to solve a UR once by looking at the PURs in the area and one had in the corner of the image the new sign. But at the end of the day we are volunteers for a crowd sourced application, we must move on to the next UR and that might mean we have to close it as NI.
On the wiki page, it would also be cool to see some sample UR’s with specific information, and how that information could be used to customize a response.
I thought the same thing - and maybe NYS can be a good template/example of a recommended UR practice that can be adopted in some capacity nationally. The 7/7, 4/4 template can be adopted on a state-by-state basis depending on how URs typically land in the particular state.
Unfortunately, I wouldn’t be able to come up with something that looks pretty for the NYS Wazeopedia page, but if someone could create a flowchart for our procedure in NYS I’d be happy to add it to the proposed update to Wazeopedia.
Ultimately I think that something is better than nothing for our guidance and information about URs on our NYS Wazeopedia page. If we add a section with general guidance, modifications and improvement can always be made at a later time.
I would put the basic text-based description into the NY wiki page, and continue to add illustrations over time.
As for making a new flowchart - here’s one.
I’m sure someone else can make it prettier.
Jushag - there are a bunch of good ideas here.
Can you start a draft wiki page with the steps you listed to solve the URs,
The comments about how to analyze the URs, and about how to approach the UR reporter?
Then everyone can work to move things around to the right place. So that, where step 1 says to analyze the UR and try to solve the problem before making any response, we can add what JDelosa said about how to do that (compare to other URs in the area, use SV, check for news about anything that happened around there that day)
As far as customer service goes, I agree with JDelosa, and would go a step further. The UR reporter is also my partner in finding and fixing a map problem. When I remember to remind myself of this, I sometimes go from feeling stuck on a problem I can’t figure out on my own to realizing I am working with someone who is an expert in the area where they drive. They can create some RPPs, move a business, or pave a new road - all from the app. They can take a screenshot of any map, draw some circles and arrows and post it to IMGUR. They can zoom in on a recent drive in WME. They can use their recent drive to trace a new road and add it to the map. They can fix a turn arrow in their own neighborhood. They might even start editing the map regularly.
From what I can see, that is identical to the one on the USA Wiki. I think we need to add the 2nd half part about leaving a follow-up reminder after 7 days.
I have access to Visio, although your Google Doc looks pretty enough to me.
I’ve created the original one with the community (champs) input. I think, I still have the actual file that I can make some changes to it. One thing I don’t see in the FC is the reminder timing. From what I can gather here is that the whole thing appears to be 7 days?
I know we don’t have anything written in our NY wiki for the actual UR guidance and we’ve been saying everyone to use 7+7. Keeping the same 14 day time frame, we can make a minor adjustments of 4+10 to get a better response from the user. This way users are asked/reminded while the issue is still fresh in their mind.
Therefore, I’m leaning towards:
Send a reminder in the 4th day
Wait for a response for another 10 days.
Leave comment and close it as NI, If no response received at the and of that 10 days
I like that this issue is being addressed and great feedback from all. I have to agree the WoP should be updated…
I like this format as previously stated by both Orbit and JD, this keeps in line with out 14 day period for UR’s but brings the reminder up close to the initial contact date, hopefully to get a quicker response from our users. If anyone wants assistance working on the flowchart I’m willing to help build one if needed.
I also think we should include somewhere in these guidelines something that was discussed previously in Discord, that even if you can’t identify the issue at hand, you should really make it a point to fix SOMETHING in the immediate area. This not only increases the chances of resolving the actual problem but also helps reduce the chance of any future issues. This could be something as simple as checking all TR’s, adding/fixing PLR/PLA’s, verify/add HN’s and/or adding/updating places. This brings us back to the basics of quality over quantity.
I agree with the above, having a shorter timeframe between initial comment by us and the reminder will hopefully get a quicker response from the users. Also, we would send the reminder message on a different day of the week which will likely change the rate of response by users as some people may respond only on weekends, others on weekdays.
Completely agree, this will reduce the likelihood of a new UR in the area and encourages high-quality edits. You never know what kind of issues you will find, there might be an issue that you never saw before, a learning opportunity.
I give my vote for 4 days until reminder and 10 days after reminder to close the UR as NI including a comment that allows the user to email to WazeNewYork@gmail.com.
Ok can someone start a new page in their userspace, put the entire proposed UR guidelines text so everyone can read the entire thing as a whole. It will be easy to make changes to it that way, as well.
Can you clarify why I am being told that UR guidance is 7 days then 7 days?
dhschneider on 02.10.2019 08:31 PM:
if you take a look at https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/Update_Requests#Flowchart it does mention the 7 days then 7 days. Please feel free to message me in the waze inbox or on discord and we can work on any reports or other map editing topics you’d like. Thanks.
New York’s guidance is 7/7. Look at a UR, if it can be solved solve it and reply. If you can’t solve it, request further information, if you don’t get a reply after 7 days send a reminder. If you get a reply in any time and can solve it go for it, if you get a reply and cannot solve it the 7 day reminder count starts over. If after the reminder period you don’t get a reply then you can respond that you weren’t able to identify the issue and close it out.
We are still following the 7+7 guidance. The 1+4+10 method was proposed and is still being tested. Given that it hasn’t been adopted yet, we still use 7+7.
