Returning Editor and Reasoning

Moderators: Unholy, ps_au

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby Traveling_Gav » Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:18 pm

ituajr I quite like your suggested wiki entry if it comes to that.

I still can't bring myself to be concerned about possible legal ramifications though. Whilst I appreciate the effort you are going to to provide examples to illustrate your point we haven't been able to find an actual case where conscious online map editing decisions or errors of omission have led to an accident let alone repercussions for the map provider. My memory of newspaper reports is that the driver is at fault if they do something dumb like drive onto a runway or into a lake. In the Apple case they said sorry we are working on it and there was no legal backlash other than the police saying it was "life threatening".

There is no doubt that ones action or inaction can lead to fatal consequences in some circumstances. I can only assume though, given the lack of diversity in contributors to this thread, that others don't have a view on this matter. It would be handy to have people say something to get a feel for where people stand even without any justification.

I also agree with GG that it would be handy to just have a decision made by Waze HQ but as I said that is unlikely to happen. There is no governance of the Waze map just a bunch of people who decide they will donate their time to look after it as best they can. Why Waze HQ treats those people with contempt is beyond me.

I still think that the problems outweigh any benefits. The problems are essentially routing issues. Here are some I can think of:
- When roads are blocked (accident) or cutoff (flooding) to change the map will result in those routes becoming unavailable (unless you drive into an area where the only option is to pass one of the private road segments).
- No other major map provider is avoiding these streets
- A "local" who wants to drive across their suburb to the shops will be routed the long way.
- Looking at Kangaroo Pt. A driver might be going to rock climb and park on River Tce. They aren't therefore using the street to rat run to home they are going to park at the end of the "local only street" (on River Tce) so why would Waze route them all the way down Main St in the traffic just to turn around at the north end and drive back down? Additionally there is metered parking in these streets so would that not suggest that it is OK to drive down the street if you are going to park there (And no I don't mean it was the destination you might be driving to River Tce and will take the first park you can find)? (Disclaimer I am a rock climber)

So I wont lose sleep if we decide to "gate" off these streets but I think it will result in poor routing for many people in and around these areas that isn't the intention of the sign.
ImageImage
AM: QLD and Central NSW
Traveling_Gav
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:01 am
Has thanked: 316 times
Been thanked: 178 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby Traveling_Gav » Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:18 am

ituajr wrote:I've presented an example of financial risk (being sued) and an example of criminal risk (manslaughter charges).


I just don't share your assessment of the likelihood of these outcomes occurring. I have not heard of this happening to anyone. Google maps and Apple maps don't avoid using these streets. We will see what others think though.

I would be interested in hearing how you would propose addressing the issues of "gating" non-"local only" streets and ensuring routing into the area is not affected.
ImageImage
AM: QLD and Central NSW
Traveling_Gav
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:01 am
Has thanked: 316 times
Been thanked: 178 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby Traveling_Gav » Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:10 am

Here is another example of how you would have to "gate" lots of non-"local traffic only" streets to stop bad routes into and through the area. I am just throwing it out there to illustrate what you would have to do (eg. "gate" more streets than potentially required) to make this work. The editor who is no longer with us obviously understood what is required to make it work and was happy to close extra streets to through traffic.

https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=row&lo ... 745&zoom=5
ImageImage
AM: QLD and Central NSW
Traveling_Gav
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:01 am
Has thanked: 316 times
Been thanked: 178 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby Traveling_Gav » Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:04 am

ituajr wrote: My main concern is the risk involved if there is an incident involving death, serious injury, or significant loss, and the injured party says Waze routing through a "local traffic only" street was a contributory factor.


I think that it is worth continuing as I think we are narrowing down on the issue. This is your reason for wanting to adjust the map. Does anyone else have a different reason for feeling that the map should be adjusted? Who else share's ituajr's concern? For the record I think the risk is very low of the Waze map being blamed (in whatever proportion) for an accident. So I am hesitant to agree with the need to change the map noting the problems with doing so in my previous posts. The risk - reward balance isn't tipping the scale for me.
ImageImage
AM: QLD and Central NSW
Traveling_Gav
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:01 am
Has thanked: 316 times
Been thanked: 178 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby Traveling_Gav » Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:59 am

ituajr wrote:OK, so your point is "We can't always implement the avoid-rat-running system". I agree. I think this is an unusual situation


The thing is I am not sure it is unusual. If you look at the Moorooka case the southern end of Anson St and the Western end of Hamilton Rd do not have the signs. If you did not "gate" these two streets as well as all the rest then routing would be broken for trips into the area.
https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=row&lo ... =345057088
https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=row&lo ... =341627509

If you look at Kangaroo Pt which has been "gated" then (in my quick look around) Bell St (on the west side) and Paton St only have a sign at one end but have the red ground markings.

Thomas St has nothing but has been "gated" as has Pearson St and Sinclair St. I would guess this is because Bell St (on the East side of Main) has the sign but if only that street was "gated" then routing to Bell St would be affected. Its also worth pointing out that this series of streets to the east of Main St don't even need to be "gated" because they don't lead anywhere so there is nowhere to rat-run to.

My point of all this is that even if it is agreed that it isnt ideal that routes are suggested through "local traffic only" streets trying to solve this may be (a) unnecessary in some cases and (b) impossible in others (unless you gate non-"local traffic only" streets as well)

Edit: To summarise: adjusting the map to stop rat-running is easy. Doing it in a way that doesn't adversely affect routing into the area or legitimate use of non-"local only streets" not so much.
ImageImage
AM: QLD and Central NSW
Traveling_Gav
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:01 am
Has thanked: 316 times
Been thanked: 178 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby Traveling_Gav » Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:44 am

ituajr wrote:If any of the defending parties

I agree that it is possible for anyone to be sued for any reason.

So is this the reason why we are looking at changing the map?
ImageImage
AM: QLD and Central NSW
Traveling_Gav
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:01 am
Has thanked: 316 times
Been thanked: 178 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby Traveling_Gav » Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:30 am

ituajr wrote:No one could have said "why did you ignore the sign", or "why did Waze encourage drivers to use that road in violation of the sign", no one could have said "the editor caused Waze to direct the driver on a route in violation of the sign", no-one would have needed to say "but it was only an advisory" or "we tell our drivers to obey all signs", and the coroner could not have criticised Waze for risky routing.
In other words, every aspect of the case shows that it could not have been brought as a result of an incident "on any street anywhere".

Yes but the central tenant of what I took away was that "Hey map editors what you are doing could get you sued so you had better not doing anything that could even appear to be "not right"". So if the reason for editing the map (that is, the problem we are trying to solve) is to avoid getting sued as editors then I think that applies to the whole map and doesnt add to the discussion.
Nice use of emotive language to make an exaggerated claim. It was actually designed to refute the assertion that there could be no legal repercussions. I said as much in the example: "What legal implications are there..."

I don't think I could take anything else away from it. You hypothetical shows how far litigation goes and you end it with the editor destroying evidence, being dobbed in by Waze HQ and being tracked down through his ISP. So I am going to maintain my statement that this (if not designed) could be reasonably seen to cause fear.

So is your point "Some situations are difficult/impossible to implement so we shouldn't do it anywhere"?

If the reason for changing the map is due to fear of litigation then yes. This is because if I accept I am exposed to litigation and I cant protect myself from being sued everywhere then there isnt much point. Indeed I would stop editing.

EDIT: But this is largely moot. I would much prefer as I said before to discuss "why the Waze map should be changed and if it was changed what problems could this cause. As a result of that the benefits and risks can be weighed."
ImageImage
AM: QLD and Central NSW
Traveling_Gav
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:01 am
Has thanked: 316 times
Been thanked: 178 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby Traveling_Gav » Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:13 am

I was trying to keep tight on the topic but you are right I should have responded to your points.
ituajr wrote:"waze's role is to provide the fastest route [...}
Shown to be false.

No I disagree. You quoted the Waze mission as to provide the "best" route. "Best" is a subjective term. So I would point out that in the app settings you have a choice of "Fastest" or "Shortest". Therefore I would say Waze's definition of "best" is either fastest or shortest depending on your preference.

"Private roads are not meant to be used to link street to street here where the route is legal"
Shown to be false

I would agree. There is nothing stopping you from add a small private segment to achieve the aim of preventing routing through an area. I made this point before that should the decision be to gate off areas that I think this is the neatest option. I think this agreement covers some following points so I won't quote them.

""Compliance with warning signs is always recommended", and you choose to believe this means "ignore the sign". How well do you think that would work in court?"
The question was ignored.

Your point here is really directed to the person who chooses to continue past the "local traffic only" sign which I do't think has a bearing on the Waze map. This is because if you the goal of the Waze map is to reflect what is "legal" then we have already agreed that it is not illegal to drive into the area. It might be many other things but not illegal. If we, however, agree that the Waze map should not only be legal but also neighbourly then that is a different question but I think opens issues such as the Barclay St example.

"You are asking me to prove why the incorrect should stay. I don't feel I should have to."
Refusal to work towards agreement.

No I think it fair to ask both sides to prove what they say. You make the statement that not "gating" these areas is "incorrect" but I don't think that has been established. It depends on what "correct" means and I said in the last point if "correct" is legal then the Waze map is correct.

"How the TMR answer would hold up in court, again, has nothing to do with the topic."
Shown to be false.

I disagree. Nothing has been "shown". I think the original point about the TMR staff was establishing the legality of driving past the sign. Ituajr, you then went onto construct a hypothetical and linked the two. Again I think the hypothetical is moot because the example could happen anytime anywhere and therefore does not particularly add to the discussion as to how the Waze map should be constructed.

So for mine I think everyone agrees that it is not "illegal" to drive down these streets. The discussion should be around why the Waze map should be changed and if it was changed what problems could this cause. As a result of that the benefits and risks can be weighed.

Already stated in posting: Should Waze discourage the use of "local traffic only" roads for through traffic?

No that is a solution to the problem. I am asking what do we think the root problem is. That is, why are we proposing this solution? We agree it is not that the Waze map is drawn illegally (and therefore needs to be fixed).
ImageImage
AM: QLD and Central NSW
Traveling_Gav
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:01 am
Has thanked: 316 times
Been thanked: 178 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby Traveling_Gav » Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:43 am

ituajr wrote:It seems that safety is at least one of the issues raised by people in relation to local traffic areas.


Yes but whether that is true or not cannot be determined. Just because the local populace petition on the basis of safety does not mean that it is their primary or sole motivation.
ImageImage
AM: QLD and Central NSW
Traveling_Gav
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:01 am
Has thanked: 316 times
Been thanked: 178 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby Traveling_Gav » Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:39 am

ituajr wrote:I can't quite grasp your point. Are you saying that sometimes obeying the sign leads to longer routes? Isn't that the whole point which triggered this discussion?


The point is if you don't "gate" off an entire area and someone is navigating into that area then Waze will always enter via the non-gated streets. This will generate URs.

Hopefully that explains the Barclay St example. If you only gated Barclay St in that area and then were leaving the train carpark (for example) then Waze would never exit via Barclay St it will head off onto the other streets to the NW. This will generate URs. The only way to solve that is to "gate" the whole area even though those streets aren't marked as "local traffic only".

Edit: spelling, grammar :-(
Last edited by Traveling_Gav on Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
ImageImage
AM: QLD and Central NSW
Traveling_Gav
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:01 am
Has thanked: 316 times
Been thanked: 178 times

Next

Return to Queensland

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users