Should we keep the requirement in the documentation for adding a Map Comment to each TIO?
Yes, leave the requirement in the wiki for adding a map comment to each TIO
No, remove this requirement.
Abstain, I have no opinion either way.
0voters
New guidance was recently released for Turn Instruction Overrides. Part of the guidelines mention adding a Map Comment to every TIO added. Is this a requirement you want left in the documentation or removed?
I voted to remove the guidance. I understand that TB may not always work and wish there was something built into WME to highlight them but I think a MC is overkill. IMHO
I agree it is extra work, but until there is some indicator natively in WME, it seems like a little work up front to avoid potentially MAJOR headaches later.
I voted to remove. I have no objection to extra work and I would love to have a map comment available for everything on the map. However, that is not reasonable and a line has to be drawn somewhere.
The main reason I am opposed to the guidance is extra work on each editor who is adding a TIO. Adding a TIO and then it inadvertently being removed does not damage the map or affect navigation (TTS yes but not the route).
Map Comments is a layer that must be turned on or even if it’s on by default, requires an editor to click on the comment to realize it has anything to do with them and the TIO that has been set there. A new editor would practically have to stumble upon a TIO to change one and if it’s on an unlocked segment, it’s most likely a Street type and therefore not a highly traveled road, so even fewer Wazers would be affected.
Map Comments would most likely start overriding the number of URs in a given area and Map Comments are seen at all zoom levels. I feel MCs would start having less meaning for editors if the map is cluttered with them. I understand the reasoning some like the idea but the negatives outweigh the positives for me at this point.
I guess to me it depends on how much these end up being used, but my gut tells me these are going to be pretty common.
If there were going to be a sparse scattering of TIOs then a MC for each one would make sense. But if TIOs are relatively common then MCs for every one of them seems counter productive, as if there is an actual need to document some unusual situation the important documentation could be lost in the noise. I’d rather see MCs only where there is something odd that requires them. A simple +1 overlock seems sufficient for these IMO
The main reason I am in favor of the MC for TIO is that there is no native way in WME to possibly see that the may be a TIO. Natively you have to click over every segment and then also hover over each turn to see which are orange. A TIO is the only native way we can bring attention to this.
Toolbox does have the function to identify them better, but standard national guidance should not rely on editors, especially new ones, to install scripts. Default national guidance should be based on native WME only. A MC for TIO is another step but it is factually the only way to more clearly call out a TIO in WME.
Currently, u-turns are also suffer from the same situation in that they are hard to identify. Turn restrictions and TBTR are even harder to verify.
However, as karlcr9911 said, it’s a slippery slope to annotate every action done in WME. The fact that instructions on how to use it properly is in the Wiki is an expectation that the user, given their appropriate lock level, should be able to use it with reasonable competency. As such, I propose the community guideline to be: only mark MC for TIOs in scenarios not immediately covered by the wiki thread.
(In fact, I would say that for any edit not directly covered by a Wiki page, there should be an MC.)
The solution for this is to speak directly with MapSir about the community’s requests, not to re-burden the community with a wall of MC over a sea of URs. While the feature is new, the PM and the devs should be open and available for feedback.
Possibly, it would be better to have Shift-Z (i.e., show restricted-road only) show all non-standard instructions and turns: u-turns, TBTR, or altogether closed.
I’m voting against requiring, but I’d been fine with encouraging the use of Map Comments at complex intersections as a note for others to review if they have that layer on. Left Exits on interstates for example are pretty obvious use cases for a TIO and adding a Map Comment for every instance would be overkill.
I’ve suggested to my state GHO after word came out that the MC/TIO guidance changed this morning, that if the override is more than a simple fix that formerly would have been done with an mDL, to leave an MC. If the situation would have formerly required alt names, inline stubs, etc, leave an MC. If it’s a routine override, don’t leave an MC.
I don’t think it should be a requirement but I think it should be recommended.
I plan to have a note on any TIO I create. It makes clear the reason for the TIO and serves as a “backup” in case editing problems (either by editors or the software) cause TIOs to be lost.
I voted for removal. We always run the risk of uneducated editors changing something, and experienced editors making a mistake. We are volunteers. The more onerous the process, the less fun for volunteers.
I don’t think TIOs are any more obscure than the “tricks” we’ve had to use in the past (wayfinders, alt. name goofyness, etc) and since they’re usually on major roads, I’m confident in our advanced editors’ ability to look before they leap.
My general thoughts are to use commons sense. If you think it helps others who come behind you understand what you were thinking, leave a comment. If it is obvious, no need to leave a comment. Mandating a comment seems counterproductive to me.
I am voting to not post a MC at each TIO.
My reasoning is:
When TIO first came out in WME Beta there was no indication in WME Production and it was possible to do a Q and W and remove the TIO without realizing what you were doing (since you could not see it)
Now You can not do that in WME Production or WME Beta. I am not sure if is because Q and W are broken or if it is by design.
MC are very hard to see when zoomed out and there is not a script to find them. I have initiated discussions to get it in UR-MP Tracker or a separate script.
I did find a MC that someone used vice UR to report a map problem so this is more work to find what to fix.
we don’t have a policy to MC every micro dogleg or wayfinder and the TIO is basically doing the same thing so why different policy?
Also it would be good to have a dark and light stripe on any TR that had a TIO so more obvious and able to pop up with Shift Z. could
I think MC’s should be discretionary and be applied on an as-needed, case-by-case basis. I mean, for newer editors who might not be sure when an MC is needed, that’s what working with a more experienced mentor - whether formally or just informally in a one-time chat - is for. More experienced editors will likely have a better idea whether a particular case can meaningfully benefit from further explanation, based on how we’ve been using tagged UR’s, right? I’m concerned that if we start making everyone explain everything they do, it’s going to clutter the map and make it difficult to get information on things that really matter.
Speaking of tagged UR’s, did we even have a formal guidance on those? If so, why shouldn’t we use that as at least a starting point for MC guidance?