DeadOnTheFloor wrote:Kai is gone.

Sorry this is off-topic but what happened to this user? There was also a user called Dauser-Shenkt (spelling?) - received good PMs from both from time to time, but I noticed they are not around anymore

L3 edits recent edits in the area.

https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=row&lo ... =337625739

Shift + Z = 4 blocked turns in small area.

https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=row&lo ... =316544528

Shift + Z = Ramp exits closed (Doesn't look right.) RAB blocked exits.

I will drive this area shortly to see if something major changed, but it looks like bad edits.

Entire suburb gated by misuse of private roads for local traffic.

https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=row&lo ... =162976647

I can verify Local Road use is only suggestive, as I have in the past with TMR.

I know we are not Google, but we are, and Google Maps do not observe these 'imposed route restrictions".

Probably for the first time in a long time, GG has my full support on this matter.

Kai is gone.

These are not PRIVATE ROADS.

https://puu.sh/yqoeK.png

Also, it would be fruitful to think

1) This is a key transport area, that over the years, all the QLD editors seemed to miss the need to implement these restrictions? I don't think so personally.

2) This was an unnecessary edit, performed by an editor with questionable skills in relation to interpreting the Best Practice and Local editing practices.

You are asking me to prove why the incorrect should stay. I don't feel I should have to.

I think that is your job, as you are alone in defending this edit type so far.

Why you don't understand things, well, that's your own issue.

The roads are not private, are able to be legally navigated and should not be excluded from the editor.

Waze, like any side road/street, will have data that will be used when considering a route for use.


Let the Waze algorithm do its job, and leave the moral decisions about using legally navigatable streets to the driver.

You asked for some proof, which was sourced when this question came up previously.

It has been an accepted answer until now, with a sudden need for a Rank & Serial number of the TMR respondent to accept it today.

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

Also, this kind of private gating of public streets, effectively creates an out of bounds suburb for Waze drivers, giving the residents a form of a blockade, on the use of the road.

https://puu.sh/yqtkV.png
https://puu.sh/yqtyF.png

I feel the same with you. Perhaps best now to have another editor mediate it for resolution.

I am happy to accept Glomps decision on this as he is the most senior and respected editor in AU.

PMG801 wrote:Someone is having same discussion on reddit re. local traffic signs used in Australia, not just QLD.

Checked your link on that 7-year-old post, and it seemed to still not have an answer that is different to the one I posted from TMR.

We are now just waiting for Glomp or another to decide this for us to remove the contention that is obviously present.

It is good that we have all been able to express our opinions in the same place.

Traveling_Gav wrote: Should we have a vote?

I think this is something that needs a Waze answer, not a popularity poll.
Doing a poll for this, will it be as effective as the TTS poll was at not achieving anything?

It's not a lack of numbers thing, but there should be a right answer to this, and I think the provided proofs to date, support the removal of these gates.

This decision will become a precedent and could lead to this type of edit being replicated across the country.

I will say it is a shame that the arbitration requested has not happened.

Dausershenkt deleted his level 3 account because he got over the fact that issues were hi-jacked often, taken off topic and generally became 6-page threads on how to implement a left turn. He also became frustrated at L1/L2 editors ignoring his advice and direction constantly.

He tried as often as he could to instruct the editors in Qld of ways to make fewer errors, and stick to the basics.

Kai decided to quit editing about the same time as I returned and started asking questions about edits in the Gold Coast Area. After finding some trash edits for an L3 and asking further details, it appears it was easier to quit than to justify the edits under question.

It is also clear to me that Kai ignored the advice of his other Qld editors, going ahead and making this edit that was not in line with current practices (in practice).

I had the authority of sorts to just fix this issues, but, decided to do the right thing and consult.

So we reach 8 pages of argument, Aus leadership team show no leadership, another Qld editor bites the dust, and the community loses another potential leader.

It is so disheartening to find this matter unresolved, after asking for a decision to be made week ago is left to the wind.

This whole thread is a World vs Ituajr, and he is on his own. He seems to not care about the views of the other editors and seems to be trying to champion this as his cause.

Ituajr, you have caused more harm than good by your tone, lack of respect and choice of belittling words in your posts. You should not be a leader, you are a shit stirrer of the highest caliber.

After reading these threads, taking into account the lack of substantial proof to the otherwise, I will be editing out these changes in Qld in the coming weeks.

I see 1 person justifying the edits of a retired editor, who was advised it appears not to do those edits, but instead chose to take their own path without consultation.

As that consultation to allow that type of change did not happen, I will revert to what was accepted, and a new thread can be created to try and change what we have considered to date to be normal.

This ends now. Take your argument to a new thread, please.