Make your voice heard! Take the Annual Editors Community Survey now! Dismiss

Post Reply

[New Page/USA] Responding to incorrect edits

Post by
Incorrect edits affect all of us, but there doesn't seem to be a wiki dedicated to the most common mistakes and the "official" approach to responding to them. I've often wished for one. When I encounter these issues I would like simply to PM a link to the editor in question and then get to work.

A good wiki would list the most common mistakes, explain why a response was necessary, and describe what that response should be. It would support the novice editor with helpful information, encourage better editing, and hopefully leave him or her feeling positive. At the same time it would alleviate the advancing editor from having to explain the same things again and again.

So, here is my attempt at this wiki. It is missing correct imagery and links to appropriate wikis but all the text and basic formatting is there.

(Draft link redacted now that the official page is live.)

I'd welcome any big comments or concerns! Especially if this is thought to duplicate some existing reference I want to catch that before I put any more work into it. Also welcome are thoughts on the wiki title and where it should fit in the wiki tree.

Small things might best be postponed. If this wiki is deemed appropriate, let's get it into an official location and then open it up for anyone to improve :)

I hope it proves useful!

[Edit: if you like the idea of this wiki and its general approach, please also feel welcome to say so, or just to use the "thank" button, so I have some idea if it's worth further effort :D ]
Last edited by DwarfLord on Sat Sep 12, 2015 3:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Post by benandjerry
PacmanNW wrote:I love this page. Of all the wiki pages, I found this one to be the most relevant and helpful when I first started editing. As I progressed to more complex issues, I went on to many other wiki pages, but when just starting, this page was very relevant.
....

....Upon doing so, I pretty much wish it was the first page I read. I think it is very well-written, well-paced, and provides good, clear, and relevant examples of the most common 'beginner' mistakes (we all made them).

......

In summary, I think it is a fantastic page. I found it very helpful when starting (I have always been the 'jump in and figure it out as you go' type) and as such have sent it to other new editors -

Bottom line: It's probably my favorite page, but I really think the first sentence (and by extension the second and third) needs to be fixed, altered, or changed (only my opinion of course).

Maybe to something like: This page covers some of the most common mistakes and errors that we all have made.

This post pretty much sums up my feeling about the "incorrect edits" wiki page!!!!
benandjerry
Country Manager
Country Manager
Posts: 141
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 50 times

Post by Blue04CRV
As a newish editor who was "sent" to this page, I find the page rather insulting, and am tempted to give up not just on editing, but on Waze altogether. I know I have entered several walking trails in my neighborhood. If this is a bad idea, then the interface should prevent level 1 editors from doing it and explain why at the time, not send them an email which says - "You have been sent here for doing something WRONG."

I also think there should be considerably less prompting of new Waze users to get involved in editing, as after reading the page I am having difficulty remembering much editing that I have done that doesn't seem frowned upon.

Notably:

1) drop exclusive moods for Waze editors (which are themselves misidentified as you have to be a Level 2 editor to get one). Instead release a separate version of the app only available to Level 2 and higher editors.

2) in the app removed the invitation to become an editor that then shows a woefully inadequate how to edit video that includes things like adding exit ramps that 99%of Wazers will never be a high enough Level editor to do.
Blue04CRV
Posts: 1
Has thanked: 6 times

Post by bummerdude69
I'd suggest a title change to 'Help for New Editors' or similar. Thinking as a newbie, with the 'softer' title, I'd be more inclined check it out.
bummerdude69
Area Manager
Area Manager
Posts: 196
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 45 times


Post by bummerdude69
DwarfLord wrote:Let me know if this comes across as more helpful and understanding.
Alternative Incorrect Edits lead-in wrote:
... For those new to WME (Waze Map Editor) it describes ....

Beneath the WME's attractive and welcoming exterior, however, lies cutting-edge technology. The WME provides expert tools that behave differently depending on small and often invisible details. Under some conditions the WME behaves counterintuitively and trips up experts and beginners alike. *I kept stumbling over minute, as a unit of time, rather than as size

This situation guarantees that no editor will escape the WME unscathed. We all make mistakes, and lots of them. The trick is learning to recognize and learn from them. *not sure that this is good, but it needs something to close the thought.
bummerdude69
Area Manager
Area Manager
Posts: 196
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 45 times

Post by CBenson
DwarfLord wrote:While I can't speak for others, if the editing community told me that I could not edit effectively, even as a beginner, without extending Waze with third-party scripts, I would wonder if Waze must not be that good. What am I supposed to think, if it appears the editing community regards the base WME as inadequate? I would question the commitment of Waze to the editing community, and that would lead me to question how much commitment I wanted to put into Waze.
I agree, and I continue to wonder this as a Global Champ. The flip side of the same coin, is wondering whether waze really wants us doing the things that the scripts permit us to do. If they wanted us to do theses things the scripts allow, why wouldn't they provide the tools themselves (or at least provide some official endorsement of scripts that they feel advance the objects of waze).

It seems to me that there are at least two factors at work. First, it seems to me that waze wants to be able to essentially say that the map is created by a vast number of users driving around and finding problems and getting them fixed. There of course is a something of a myth here in that much map editing is done without much connection to any driving. But to the extent that waze sees their userbase editing maps based on user's driving experiences then the scripts are just an outgrowth of that user experience with users making the waze map better. If waze doesn't look at the scripts, then they can continue to espouse the master myth of how the maps get created.

Second, there is clearly a resource allocation issue here. Waze either doesn't want to or can't allocate resources to incorporate many of the script functions into WME. There are other pressing development goals. To the extent that the map editing is getting accomplished, they don't need to work on the features that we can already access through community developed tools.

There is some downside to the appearance that waze always appears to be looking the other way as to the actual methods used to adjust the map. But there is upside too, that is why we use the third-party scripts.

On balance I prefer that beginners should be introduced to these realities of the waze editing experience early.
CBenson
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 10330
Has thanked: 608 times
Been thanked: 1642 times
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902

Post by CBenson
Sure, but the question is how much reading should they have to do? Isn't the question at issue whether the page being designed to point to when responding to incorrect edits should include information regarding the scripts?
CBenson
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 10330
Has thanked: 608 times
Been thanked: 1642 times
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902

Post by CBenson
I have some comments on the Walking Trails section. I generally agree with you that walking trails shouldn't be on the map. However, I have a few issues with the section that I would like to raise.

First, I don't think this wiki page is the place to set policy regarding walking trails. It seems to me that if this is our guidance on walking trails it should be placed or repeated in the road types section or other sections that people would look to for specific editing guidance for walking trails.

Second, I worry greatly about giving guidance to delete things on a page that is intended generally to be given to new editors who appear to have not read the rest of the wiki. I would prefer that this guidance be in the form of "refrain from adding walking trails like this" rather than "walking trails like this should be removed."

Third, this is not really how walking trails are handled in my area. The problem seems to be 1) many were on the base map import, 2) there has not really been formal guidance to delete them, 3) there are some advantages to having them on the map and 4) when not on the map its just too easy for any new editor to add them. Thus, many walking trails that would fully meet your criteria for removal are mapped here. It is just easier to have them mapped well than continually delete them as new editors add them.

Fourth, some of the issues with walking trails can be mitigated if the pedestrian boardwalk type is used rather than the walking trail type. (Although, as you are aware, it is not clear that this is intentional on waze's part or that it will remain this way in the future.)
CBenson
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 10330
Has thanked: 608 times
Been thanked: 1642 times
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902

Post by CBenson
I agree with your perspective from a technical perspective. The parallel road problems might be slightly overstated, but who outside of Ra'anana really knows. There are some pros regarding walking trails as landmarks, but I don't think they outweigh the cons. It seems to me (based only on inferences from scant information) that the behavior of walking trails is based on the idea that there should be a way to provide for destinations that are not on a driveable street. Thus, walking trails that have associated house numbers or that appear to be servicing a place may well be on the map for a reason.
CBenson
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 10330
Has thanked: 608 times
Been thanked: 1642 times
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902

Post by CBenson
My preference in order from most prefer to least prefer is 3, 2, 1, 4.
CBenson
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 10330
Has thanked: 608 times
Been thanked: 1642 times
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902