Page 1 of 4

Re: NY Protocol for Handling UR's

PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 2:36 pm
by bac1022
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.

Re: NY Protocol for Handling UR's

PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2016 1:46 am
by bac1022
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.

Re: NY Protocol for Handling UR's

PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2016 6:46 pm
by bac1022
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/1tZD ... sp=sharing

This is also on my wiki user page.

NY Protocol for Handling UR's

PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2016 1:00 am
by beachbumli247
The topic of closing UR's seems to come up every once in a while in the GHO group, and about how there is no official guidance for the exact procedure that should be followed when making initial contact, waiting to send a response, and closing out URs. A few of us have been talking about it, and decided it would be best to start a discussion to formalize the rules for UR's statewide, and get it added to the Wiki pages so that we are all on the same page. We need to come up with a minimum timeline for reminders and closures that we all agree on as editors as there seems to be some dissent about what is best at this time.

Note that this discussion is for statewide policy. It has been discussed the possibility of later adding on specific protocol for NYC due to the different nature, and sheer volume of UR's that are encountered there. That is a discussion for a later time.

Based upon discussions with other editors, and my understanding of the general guidelines for NY, I present the following draft guidelines for the Wiki pages:

Update Requests (UR) are our only direct line of communication with the end user. As such, it is important that we not only make every attempt respond to reports as they pop up in a timely fashion, but also provide them with enough time to respond since many users are what are affectionately referred to "weekend warriors".

Protocol for handling UR's in NY is to send an initial response to the user, regardless of the age of the UR. A second reminder response is to be sent a minimum of 4 days later, and the UR is to be closed out no sooner than 7 days from initial attempt at contact. If there is ongoing dialog between the editor and user, the UR may remain open longer at the editors discretion until a resolution is reached. If at any time the user stops responding for 4+ days, the editor is to send out reminder response to the editor, and the report may be closed out no less than 4 days from last contact by the editor


Please let us know if you disagree with any of the timelines I have posted in here, and any other changes/additions you would like to see in the Wiki page regarding handling of UR's

-Warren

Re: NY Protocol for Handling UR's

PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 2:47 am
by beachbumli247
Also, I personally feel that once a user reports then to help in the process of doing UR's - a UR is free game for anyone to tackle until after the reporter responds or if there was sufficient information to being taking action in the initial report.


I agree 100%, and I know most of those editing in my area at least feel the same way. A lot of times an editor will comment on a handful of UR's, then may get busy for a week or 2, and I don't feel the user should suffer as a result of an editors busy schedule. If anyone has any argument to the contrary I'd be interested in hearing it just to hear both sides of the argument.

Seems most people agree we should also have a longer lead time between responses to allow for more users to have time in responding. Any downsides to doing so, other than more UR's staying on map longer, which is not necessarily a bad thing once we get the backlog under control.

Re: NY Protocol for Handling UR's

PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2016 3:21 am
by beachbumli247
Ok so I just read back through these posts, and aside from NYC editors (which largely boils down to a density issue), it seems the general consensus is that a time period of comment, 7 days reminder, 7 days close, for a total 14+ days from initial comment (assuming no response from the user). I like the idea of using 2 cases of low (normal) vs high density as was previously pointed out.

I do agree with JDesola in his point that UR's will help in justifying an ongoing issue to senior editors, but feel that these are the exception rather than the rule. I've come across a couple similar cases in which may close a few UR's initially, but as you start to notice a trend we can either leave a few open to show that trend, or start to point it out to senior editors as you notice 1 or 2 UR's popping up complaining about it so they are aware of it. These are the type of issues that could be handled on case by case basis, and you could even add a comment stating something along the lines of "We believe this may be an ongoing issue, so we are leaving this report open as we look into it" so that other editors are aware not to close it immediately.

One main thing that still seems to be up for debate is how UR's by another editor are handled. I think most editors in the metro area (JDesola, JSNinja, Rfrsw, etc) have come to an agreement that with the large backup of URs, any UR that we come across that is ready for response or closing is fair game. I definitely see the benefit of allowing the original editor to continue dialog with the user though, both from the users perspective, and from a new editors perceptive. I know that as a new editor it would've been a little intimidating to have more experienced editors jumping onto my UR's before I could spend the time to look into them.

I have modified my original draft with these comments in mind.

Update Requests (UR) are our only direct line of communication with the end user. As such, it is important that we not only make every attempt respond to reports as they pop up in a timely fashion, but also provide them with enough time to respond since many users are what are affectionately referred to "weekend warriors".

Protocol for handling UR's in NY is to send an initial response to the user, regardless of the age of the UR. The length of time to wait on reminder responses and closing a UR are dependent on the density of UR's in an area. In high density UR areas (i.e. areas that have more than <5> UR's on screen at zoom level <7>), reminder responses may be sent after a minimum of 4 days, with the UR closed after an additional 4 days for a total of 8 days minimum from initial comment. In "normal density UR areas" (i.e. all other cases), a reminder response is to be sent a minimum of 7 days from initial contact, and the UR is to be closed out no sooner than 14 days from initial attempt at contact. If there is ongoing dialog between the editor and user, the UR may remain open longer at the editors discretion until a resolution is reached. If at any time the user stops responding for 7+ days, the editor is to send out reminder response to the editor, and the report may be closed out no less than 7 days from last contact by the editor.

If you come across a UR that is already being handled by another editor, priority should be given to the initial editor to continue the conversation with the user. If more than 7 days have gone by from the last response from the initial editor, then it may be handled by any editor that

In all cases, the editor should give their best effort to determine a solution to the users report. In some cases, a deviation from the users route and the Waze provided route is enough to solve the problem. Other cases following along the route in street view could show signs for a turn restriction that may not be immediately obvious. The point is that it is our responsibility as editors to make out best efforts to clean up issues that would cause a user to report map errors.

Re: NY Protocol for Handling UR's

PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2016 3:02 am
by clubjuggle
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.

Re: NY Protocol for Handling UR's

PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2016 10:50 pm
by CNY_STi
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

Re: NY Protocol for Handling UR's

PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2016 1:29 am
by jdelosa
I like the idea of this discussion... And I agree with your assessment of what my understanding on the general timeline is currently .
I feel the Reporting Wazer has no idea of what happens then they press the button. I get a lot of responses with very little info because they think we already have enough info to answer the UR. I have also noticed I don't get a response until after the reminder has been sent. So in my humble opinion a slight longer time line is warranted. I am in favor of a minimum of 7 days before the reminder can be sent and an additional 7 days before the close for no further communication.

If I can suggest we keep in the timeline topic until we get some consensus before we tackle other UR related subjects....thanks all John (JD)

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Re: NY Protocol for Handling UR's

PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:36 pm
by jdelosa
I want to thank everyone who added to this thread so far. My only reservation to closing to quickly is my personal conversations with friends on how they as wazers use the app.
They do not have email notifications on and they only get them in the app. Which is why we get such poor resopnces. The user has to look at the notification to see our reply and if they only use the app for longer destinations they might not turn on the app for over a week.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk