[Page Update] Real time closures # Major Traffic Events

[kentsmith9]

I have updated the MTE section of the Real time closures page to bring it up to date and incorporate/merge in the content from this Mega events page that had a request to me merged with the former section.

Here is my new proposed section.

Here is the link to the change view.
(Note: The anchor at the bottom of the original view belongs to the next section and will not be removed from that page.)

[kentsmith9]

Also, I noticed in the section below the one I updated, there are references to sheets that I don’t know if they still exist and I think it is no longer the primary method for entering closures. But since I never used them, I don’t know if they still exist. If someone can confirm their status, I can update that section accordingly.

[ehepner1977]

First blush, I see R4, as the minimum rank for RTCs, this has changed to R3. Also, the text implies a minimum rank to create an MTE, all ranks can create one, you must be 3+ to add closures.

Otherwise, agree with this update after confirmation regarding the referenced form.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Machete808]

Hate to do this and run – I will take a closer look after I hit my desktop – but I thought I’d post my own attempt at this section/page here:

https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/User:Machete808/WME_Event_Mode

There were problems with the images loading, for starters.

Was waiting for after the Awazeing Race contest to apply any new practice I had before finishing this… and then other things pushed it to a back burner.

[kentsmith9]

Machete808 and I will work together to merge our two proposals to collect the best of both updates. I noticed many images were disrupted during the Wazopedia transition, but still exist on the original Wiki and can be uploaded again from there.

@ehepner1977

First blush, I see R4, as the minimum rank for RTCs, this has changed to R3. Also, the text implies a minimum rank to create an MTE, all ranks can create one, you must be 3+ to add closures.

Otherwise, agree with this update after confirmation regarding the referenced form.

Good info. To clarify, any rank can go to the “Events” page of WME and create an event, but they cannot add road closures unless rank 3+.

QUESTION 1: Should we incorporate these “Create MTE” instructions into the page so it is not an external page, or is that data restricted to higher ranks?

QUESTION 2: Is the Event Mode button of WME not visible to ranks below 3?

[kentsmith9]

I fixed the images on Machete808’s draft so we can better understand the proposal.

It looks like that section is mostly covering the steps I noted are currently in the separate document. I think that would be a good idea to incorporate those steps into the wiki, so we can develop that section into more detail.

[anon33958190]

FWIW this section of the scheduled reconfiguration page has information and images related to creating a construction event. Feel free to use any or none; I based some of my info on Vicki’s draft above

[Machete808]

@kentsmith9

Also, I noticed in the section below the one I updated, there are references to sheets that I don’t know if they still exist and I think it is no longer the primary method for entering closures. But since I never used them, I don’t know if they still exist. If someone can confirm their status, I can update that section accordingly.

The regional sheets still exist, AFAIK. Here’s the one for NA, at least:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lv0XQFpeBEH7a9IY8Cn6lm2gNHCBI68h5VvWyj9T13Q/edit?usp=sharing

Here’s its form:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf9ZNq6asCnvnXZ6AQE_6HJOunuc90bTKNS6bS9fZNGkVIdgw/viewform

They’re much less frequently used, but there are closure requests on it – typically from editors trying to get closures placed on roads that are above their rank.

Some of these closures get missed these days, so this routine should be de-emphasized in WoP.

[Machete808]

@kentsmith9

I fixed the images on Machete808’s draft so we can better understand the proposal.

It looks like that section is mostly covering the steps I noted are currently in the separate document. I think that would be a good idea to incorporate those steps into the wiki, so we can develop that section into more detail.

I have combined content from my draft on Events Mode with Kent’s page proposal on Major Traffic Events, here:

https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/User:Kentsmith9/Major_traffic_event#Major_traffic_event

I see opportunities to spruce it up, especially graphically. I think the images can be improved/adjusted, the fonts bumped up a bit.

But mainly looking for factual elements that may be missing. Thanks for all feedback and help!

[anon33958190]

@MTE draft

For an event to be considered for inclusion in the following week’s push/inbox messaging, all closure information must be received by the Wednesday prior to the event.

I thought it had to be 48 hours before the event begins, rather than the Wednesday before. That’s what I have heard; haven’t been able to test.

@MTE draft

A closure may not appear in the client app if Waze is unable to obtain the proper information, either through the user-completed closure form or if other resources cannot be found.

May want to add a qualifier before this, like “Although editors are encouraged to create events and closures directly, forms can still be used to request that Waze create them. However…”

Otherwise this page looks good!

[ehepner1977]

@Kartografer

@MTE draft

For an event to be considered for inclusion in the following week’s push/inbox messaging, all closure information must be received by the Wednesday prior to the event.

I thought it had to be 48 hours before the event begins, rather than the Wednesday before. That’s what I have heard; haven’t been able to test.

At the GLR meetup 48 hours was given as the number. Since some part of the process remains manual, that does essentially mean Wednesday in the US since staff weekend is Friday & Saturday.

[anon33958190]

@ehepner1977

@Kartografer

@MTE draft

For an event to be considered for inclusion in the following week’s push/inbox messaging, all closure information must be received by the Wednesday prior to the event.

I thought it had to be 48 hours before the event begins, rather than the Wednesday before. That’s what I have heard; haven’t been able to test.

At the GLR meetup 48 hours was given as the number. Since some part of the process remains manual, that does essentially mean Wednesday in the US since staff weekend is Friday & Saturday.

Kind of, but if closure information is announced on Friday for an event that starts on Tuesday or Wednesday, that statement would discourage people from making an event for it, when submitting on Friday actually would give staff two business days to review for messaging. How about saying this:

Since the decision to send event-related messages involves staff review, for an event to be considered for push/inbox messaging, all closure information must be received at least two Israeli business days prior to the event.

Those who don’t know what that means can look it up and simultaneously receive an explanation for why other staff-related things take longer than they may expect

Sent from my LG-H811 using Tapatalk

[ehepner1977]

@Kartografer

Kind of, but if closure information is announced on Friday for an event that starts on Tuesday or Wednesday, that statement would discourage people from making an event for it, when submitting on Friday actually would give staff two business days to review for messaging. How about saying this:

Since the decision to send event-related messages involves staff review, for an event to be considered for push/inbox messaging, all closure information must be received at least two Israeli business days prior to the event.

Those who don’t know what that means can look it up and simultaneously receive an explanation for why other staff-related things take longer than they may expect

Sent from my LG-H811 using Tapatalk

Along with your suggestion to encourage MTE creation even if the event won’t get a push, I’d be good with the proposed change.

[Machete808]

@kentsmith9

I fixed the images on Machete808’s draft so we can better understand the proposal.

It looks like that section is mostly covering the steps I noted are currently in the separate document. I think that would be a good idea to incorporate those steps into the wiki, so we can develop that section into more detail.

Thanks, guys! Have made those suggested changes and will hang on for further feedback, especially from Kent.