Get a sneak peek at whats next for Permanent Hazards on our April 7th Office Hours!
Post by PMG801
ituajr wrote:Well, I think it is now apparent that most of the people commenting here think that this is a Queensland issue, despite several of them previously pointing out that this would become a precedent for Australia. And GG has summarised the objections as "the 'gate' system is difficult to implement and may not work as intended". Apparently implementing it where it can be done properly is not good enough. The Nirvana Fallacy wins again.
I continue to believe that the underlying reason for the dissent is that some people want to use the rat runs, are happy to encourage others to do so, and don't accept that it is both irresponsible and can have consequences. This whole discussion leaves me disappointed with the behaviour of those editors, and discourages me from taking part in the community any more.
Can I buy your account from you then so I can have level 5 editor access?
PMG801
Posts: 493
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 31 times
Send a message

Post by PMG801
I've ungated kangaroo point boys/girls.

You're all acting like a bunch of Children. Google Maps, Apple Maps, HERE etc. don't gate it, so why should Waze?

QLD Globe doesn't gate the streets either.
PMG801
Posts: 493
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 31 times
Send a message

Post by PMG801
theclem54 wrote:The discussion was not elevated to Waze HQ as those with the e-mail address of our community rep are well aware that HQ does not partake in these discussions. They have no opinion on local mapping guidelines and they do not intend to start having an opinion on local mapping guidelines. This is what the community discuss and settle upon in the forum.
I've already settled on a conclusion - no gating.
PMG801
Posts: 493
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 31 times
Send a message

Post by ps_au
Perhaps it would be better getting the opinion of Waze staff on where they want to stand irrespective of what the TMR regulations are. As far as I can see, there are pro's and con's to this discussion, both having their merits and arguments.
ps_au
Posts: 1343
Has thanked: 390 times
Been thanked: 396 times
Send a message

Post by ps_au
I'm going to put my 2 cents worth in as some people claim that editors of higher levels (including those who have volunteer to look after individual states and the country) are not monitoring this topic (rest assured, they are monitoring this, but we are all big boys & girls to hopefully play nicely in the same sandpit)

What we all have to be aware of here is that both sides of the discussion have for and against points, and both sides are valid (depending on where you stand - is the shoe pink and white or grey - )

We are ALL volunteers here and we all have different opinions about roading networks and different levels of experience. Let us not forget the core concept behind Waze was local community people editing their local roads to provide a higher level of driving experience to those using the App. It's a simple, yet very effective idea.

We will never stop idiots trying to take side roads to beat the rat race and to an extent Waze will sometimes route down those roads too. Putting in gated roads may or may not minimise the issue, but as it has been said, that would be a near nightmare to implement and maintain. Looking at the roads in other countries, they do not have gated roads, yet they somehow manage to survive.

I personally don't think we need to put them in (yes they are a great idea), but use the KISS principle (Keep It Simple & Succeed). This is my thoughts and mine alone contributing to the topic and not of a Lvl6 editor or whatever I am these days.
ps_au
Posts: 1343
Has thanked: 390 times
Been thanked: 396 times
Send a message

Post by samondelwing
This is going off-topic now, but the argument is here - if the user of the app accepts that they accept the risk of driving and following possibly outdated instructions, why is there such a paranoid level system? OpenStreetMap functions fine with letting everyone edit everything. As a Level 1 editor I can say I've been deterred from contributing due to the need to beg for an unlock for basically any useful edit I'd like to make.
samondelwing
Posts: 11
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 1 time
Send a message

Post by samondelwing
That's a fair concern, and OSM has had similar problems in the past (I left around the time of the ODbL). But Waze can use Google which is where a lot of prohibited OSM copying came from, so that's not a problem here, plus the map (in the cities) is pretty good now so bulk copying is unlikely. I don't object to there being levels, but there's already an approval system for some types of changes, so why the need to lock things from being edited at all?

Maybe it's just a Perth problem? Traveling_Gav pointed out that primary streets should be Level 1 per the wiki, but in Perth they're all Level 2. Maybe if that were different 3000 edits wouldn't seem so impossible for a casual editor.

I don't see any point in replying to URs since now apparently you need to be Level 3 to handle them? Is that new? Place URs requiring Level 2 is fine.
samondelwing
Posts: 11
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 1 time
Send a message

Post by theclem54
Wow, I check in to see how the community is going and this is what it has become...

I've missed a bit the past 12 months due to decreased editing activity, but I had assumed that we were still mapping per what are legally permissible turns.

I find it quite surprising, especially early on, that the only legislation referenced was SA, yet we are discussing QLD.

https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view ... -2009-0194
Section 97 of the aforementioned road rules deals with Road access signs. This is quite grey and would be interesting to see it tested in court (I suspect that it is referring to the signs regarding vehicle types and weights, not whether it's destination is the next state over or not). Like many of the standards and legislative requirements in my industry, it's not likely to ever get tested and will remain forever grey.

So if we are to 'gate' off all of the local access only areas, assuming we get it done right and don't break half the city, does that mean that the chap living just on the other side of the 'gated area' is forced to travel the long way around? Is he not a local, living right beside the 'gated area'? This is the same concern that TG has and it's a valid one.

Without a clear definition of the intent of local access areas from the appropriate regulator (council or state) defining the intended boundaries, limitations and implementation, then I am not prepared to support the 'gating' of local access areas with the use of private roads or any other means.
theclem54
Country Manager
Country Manager
Posts: 1108
Has thanked: 275 times
Been thanked: 359 times
Send a message

Post by theclem54
The discussion was not elevated to Waze HQ as those with the e-mail address of our community rep are well aware that HQ does not partake in these discussions. They have no opinion on local mapping guidelines and they do not intend to start having an opinion on local mapping guidelines. This is what the community discuss and settle upon in the forum.
theclem54
Country Manager
Country Manager
Posts: 1108
Has thanked: 275 times
Been thanked: 359 times
Send a message

Post by Traveling_Gav
Ituajr I also don't see your proof of argument.

The TMR website shows the regulatory signs here and the local traffic sign is not there:
https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety ... regulatory

The TMR website then clearly states that drivers SHOULD (emphasis added) continue on the main roads. It is therefore optional.
https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety ... nstruction

I think it is wrong to prevent routing through these streets. If there was an accident ahead waze would just keep you in the traffic with these "gates" which is totally unnecessary. If the traffic calming devices in these areas slow down the traffic too much Waze will avoid them.

Why would we set up the map to not do something which is legal. If the driver does not want to go down that street then they have that choice and Waze will recalculate. If they do want to go down the street then they can as it is not illegal.
Traveling_Gav
Country Manager
Country Manager
Posts: 1633
Has thanked: 404 times
Been thanked: 342 times
Send a message