This is a great page,

For the risk section I would include something on recent changes that are not reflected in aerial and/or street view photos or even recent GPS traces. So that well meaning editor does not come through and attempt to fix the road segments to match what is seen. This type of fix really unfixes an area. A junior editor can ask for a downlock and get a non-local senior editor who is not familiar with the changes.

Editors will usually drop a map comment but since not everyone has MCs visible the uplock is for the extra protection.

So add "recent changes not reflected in aerial/street view photos or GPS traces" before the current "or that depart from standard..."

Would consider changing "Risk may be mitigated somewhat with the use of a Map Comment." to "Risk can be reduced, but not eliminated, by leaving a Map Comment explaining the situation."

Sorry it wasn't clear, but I am talking about an area that is complete. The new set up is not reflected in the photos or even the GPS traces. There should not be any subsequent changes. Prior to map comments just had a few people come behind and change things and undo the correct mapping. Well intentioned but incorrect. MCs help a lot, but sometimes overlocking can be used.

I like your new changes.

Understand the mass editing if very highly discouraged, but have run across some foreign editors using them here in the states and you can't undo some of their automated changes. Ex accepting PUR for Gas Station to RPP......

This is a great set of guidelines to follow when deciding to lock something in the map at a higher-than-normal level. One such example was Lombard St. in San Francisco. The 8-hairpin turns on this steep grade are not ideal for most drivers. Trucks are not allowed and most private citizens do not care to be routed through this difficult stretch of road. SFO has high tourism, especially at this site. There are many visitors who may be interested in "adjusting" the road (as it is set to private to prevent routing). It is not, however, a very important segment for routing as it is only one-way and covers only one city block. Currently it is locked at 4. Had this segment been more significant for routing higher volumes of traffic, it may very well qualify for a 5+ lock.

Using DLs logic could help an editor through some critical thinking before making a final decision.

DwarfLord wrote: [*]Local concerns include the presence of one or more ranking local editors

I'm wary of this one. If a situation occurs where state management thinks that something needs to be locked above its "difficulty level" because of one editor, something other than segment lock levels probably needs to change.

Most of the time, the solution is education and connection to the editing community. In very rare cases, an RC might decide it is necessary to bring an editor's editing "power" in line with their editing ability by requesting a reduction in rank for the editor.

whose rank may not reflect their familiarity with local editing customs or with the wiki,

That is solved by connection to the community and by appropriate updates to the state or regional wazeopedia page.

or with whom communications have been sparse

Connection to the community, updates to the wazeopedia.

An editor who repeatedly refuses to learn and to work together with the rest of the team might merit a reduction in rank.

or less than fully positive.[/list]

This one is difficult to understand. It could mean anything from "difference of opinion" to "kind of a lone wolf" to "downright disrespectful and abusive"

Local guidance can be published in the state wiki page for everyone to learn.
Any editor who feels that some protion of local guidance is suboptimal can discuss it with active editors who drive on those roads, ask recognized experts for advice, even take the matter to the RC team if the issue cannot be resolved at the local or state level. It should be possible to resolve most disagreements about the best ways to map in courteous, respectful, friendly way.

If the community feels one editor is disrespectful and unwilling to work in a positive way and cannot resolve it one-to-one, they can bring the issue to the RC team. If an editor feels there is some issue with editing skill or appropriate behavior by an area or state manager, and if peer-to-peer communication doesn't help, they can turn to their RC team for help.

I would not like to set expectations that "locking things far above what they ought be locked based on difficulty / complexity to lock out one editor" is a normal map protection technique.
For that reason, I would not like to describe this practice on the map protection page in a positive tone, even though I am aware that sometimes, especially in acute situations, there seems to be no alternative.

I agree that locking certain "problem areas" may make sense (in the long run, we need help from Waze / CCP / something to help resolve community issues in a better way). It is not a large area of the map, and not related to a single user.

I agree we need to hear more voices on this subject.

From my point of view, the concern is pragmatic. We can either state that blocking one bad editor + a whole bunch of good ones is a pretty normal thing to do, or we can make it a dirty little secret to be kept out of wazeopedia GUIDANCE at all costs.

That is sufficiently vague. I like it. Let's see what our RCs think of it.

If you need to keep the part about locking due to an editor with increased rank, it should probably have "temporarily" added to it. In my region, we don't generally use over-locking to protect against a single editor. It might be used as a stop gap measure from the time it was found and the time the issue is resolved, but never as a long term solution. For me there is sort of an unwritten escalation scale on reacting to editing issues. If someone shows they are not keeping up with guidance or continue to make mistakes that someone at that rank should not after attempting to help them get up to date, reductions or blocks are not unheard of. Most of us would rather not if we can avoid it, sometimes it is the only way.

When departing from regional locking standards, it is always useful to include a Map Comment describing why the departure was necessary.

Definitely agree with this, particularly in areas where some segments may still be locked to old standards and editors might assume that they are remnants that need to be set to the current standard while they have the segments DL'd for other work.