Returning Editor and Reasoning

Moderator: delilush

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby ituajr » Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:20 pm

Traveling_Gav wrote: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.

I later demonstrated that the statement that Waze's "stated mission of getting a driver from A to B the fastest way possible" was false. Is there a significant difference between "mission" and "role"? At best you've scored half a point here, so I'll half concede it.
"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".

Please don't invent statements. I did not make that statement. DeadOnTheFloor was the one who said "You are asking me to prove why the incorrect should stay. I don't feel I should have to". Where I used the word "incorrect" was in the statement "so far you have failed to show why it's incorrect." My statement is still true. His refusal to do so is still refusing to work towards agreement.
[ img ] [ img ]
Country Manager for Australia.
70000 km driven with Waze, 2027 km paved, 7200 Update Requests resolved.
ituajr
Coordinators
Coordinators
 
Posts: 3184
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:23 pm
Location: South Australia
Has thanked: 357 times
Been thanked: 1709 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby ituajr » Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:58 am

I decided to take a break from swatting aside false statements and faulty logic, and step back to consider the big issues. 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.

The accepted way of assesing this is by means of a Targeted Risk Assessment. I'm a CAMS Steward (you know, the guys you hear about but never see on the Formula 1 and Supercars TV broadcasts, where the ticker says something like "stewards investigating incident between Smith and Jones on turn 3"). We don't just deal with racing incidents - we also monitor hazard management - is that fence high enough, has permission been obtained from local residents, did the driver's briefing include all the required notifications, and so on.) I don't operate at the the F1/Supercars level, but I'm familiar with the CAMS Targeted Risk Assessment Form, so I used that.

The assessment of risk is based on the Consequence of the event (in this case, "death, permanent or extensive injury") and the Likelihood (in this case, somewhere between Possible ("may occur in exceptional circumstances and has been known to occur elsewhere") and Unlikely ("whilst theoretically possible is not known to have occurred"). That means the Consequence is somewhere between High and Extreme. Extreme risk means immediate actions required, High risk means Senior Official/Senior Management attention required. (There is a further consideration in our situation - if the event occurs, how likely is it that we will be involved in the fallout? Difficult to tell, but the legal system will go to extreme levels to "get" someone, so we can't just assume we're immune. In any case, our exposure is reduced because of this factor.)

In a sensible discussion, we would agree on established facts, assess how important they were, weigh up the issues, and come to some conclusion. That's not really happening in this discussion. Thinking back over it, I'm starting to think the arguments from the other side result from internal beliefs such as:
  • everything is black and white and crystal clear. If one person has some responsibility, nobody else has any responsibility.
  • it's not illegal, so it's OK to do it
  • there's no likelihood of an on-the-spot fine, and later consequences mean nothing to me
  • consideration for others ("neighbourliness") is irrelevant to me. I'm special - I can do whatever I want.
These all look like the characteristics of the "entitled generation". "Entitled is frequently used in the same sentence as words like selfish, spoiled, privileged, and inexperienced". "Even when [they describe themselves] they've often chosen to paint themselves with an entitled or narcissistic brush."

To people like that, logic and facts don't matter if they don't produce the result they want. They use Goal-Oriented Motivated Reasoning. They make false statements and use faulty logic to achieve the result that supports their feelings.

As a result, I'm now questioning whether it's worth going on. If the other side doesn't accept facts and logic and the resulting conclusion, there's no point in demonstrating facts and logic. Or is it just that they don't understand how to demonstrate facts and use proper logic?

Is it worth continuing the debate?
[ img ] [ img ]
Country Manager for Australia.
70000 km driven with Waze, 2027 km paved, 7200 Update Requests resolved.
ituajr
Coordinators
Coordinators
 
Posts: 3184
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:23 pm
Location: South Australia
Has thanked: 357 times
Been thanked: 1709 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.
[ img ][ img ]
AM: QLD and Central NSW
Traveling_Gav
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 1459
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:01 am
Has thanked: 363 times
Been thanked: 314 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby GarvinGray » Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:56 am

Traveling_Gav wrote:
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.

When anyone first signs up to use the waze app, they are given the warning/disclaimer that they are responsible for being in control of the car and following the road signs etc and that the waze app is a navigation tool, nothing more.

As editors, we attempt to make the map as accurate as possible, but everyday we have permitted illegal turns, had green arrows for turns that are illegal, turns across double continuous lines and many other illegal infractions, these just to name a few.

User reports come in, we fix the errors, apologise for the error and thank the reporter and move on. There are no claims of us as editors being sued.

As for my participation in this discussion. I have lost interest as I have nothing new to add. Also, I have noticed that no one else has joined the discussion, which means that this whole discussion is not that pressing of an issue for the general editorship.

If other editors believe it to be a pressing issue, they can join the discussion and carry it on. I am sticking a fork in it, because for me, it is done.
As waze editors, our role is to map based on what is legal. It is the job of councils and governments to determine whether or not a turn or other similar 'risky' situations should be permitted based on risk assessments performed by people much more qualified than us to do so.

This point is not up for discussion, never has been and never will be.
GarvinGray
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:00 am
Has thanked: 37 times
Been thanked: 193 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
[ img ][ img ]
AM: QLD and Central NSW
Traveling_Gav
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 1459
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:01 am
Has thanked: 363 times
Been thanked: 314 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby ituajr » Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:46 am

BTStar wrote:
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 :cry:

I don't know what happened to Kai. DauserShenkt spat the dummy at having his edits challenged, and went away. See So long and thanks for all the fish. The conversation is a bit hard to follow, because all his postings have been deleted, but you can get the drift.
There are those who say he has reappeared with a different username, again being argumentative and wrong.
[ img ] [ img ]
Country Manager for Australia.
70000 km driven with Waze, 2027 km paved, 7200 Update Requests resolved.
ituajr
Coordinators
Coordinators
 
Posts: 3184
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:23 pm
Location: South Australia
Has thanked: 357 times
Been thanked: 1709 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby PMG801 » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:15 am

ituajr wrote:
BTStar wrote:
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 :cry:

I don't know what happened to Kai. DauserShenkt spat the dummy at having his edits challenged, and went away. See So long and thanks for all the fish. The conversation is a bit hard to follow, because all his postings have been deleted, but you can get the drift.
There are those who say he has reappeared with a different username, again being argumentative and wrong.


Hahaha that was a fun thread, I remember that UR :P.
PMG801
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:04 am
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby jberkers42 » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:45 am

I have read and re-read most of this discussion this morning in order to get an idea of where this discussion is currently at.

Firstly, I haven't weighed in on the discussion up to this point, not because I have no interest, but because I felt that there was not a lot that I could contribute.

At this point my initial contribution is that there may be other editors out there in a similar position to myself that are keeping an eye on the discussion, but staying out of it. Some of this may also be because they don't feel they have enough experience.

In my view, both sides of the argument have presented valid reasons for their positions (tangents and educational examples notwithstanding).

One one side we have those that wish to just map these areas as normal streets, and let the driver decide whether to use the offered route. Others would like to map in such a way that Waze avoids routing through such "Local traffic Only" areas. There are others still (such as myself) that would like to get a more general concensus from the editing community as to which is the accepted way to map such areas.

My personal view is generally in line with various other advice to drivers, in line with Waze's Terms of Service:

https://www.waze.com/legal/tos

Road information prevails : The information provided by the Service is not intended to replace the information provided on the road, such as travel direction, time based restrictions, lane restrictions, road blockades, traffic signs, traffic lights, police instructions, etc.


Additionally:

Non-continuous updates : The information provided by the Service originates from other users of the Service. Such information is intrinsically fluctuant and may be inaccurate, incomplete or outdated. Waze does not provide any warranties to such information's credibility or reliability.


This puts the responsibility of the decision on the driver.

I agree with ituajr assessment that it is an ingenious use of the private installation guidance in the Wiki, but also understand all of the complexities that arise when you are "on the ground".

As raised by both GarvinGray and Travelling_Gav, not all "local traffic only" areas are completely signed, either using signposts or maroon road markings. This would mean that an area is not completely enclosed in the "Private Installation" configuration, resulting in long routes for those drivers trying to route into the area because Waze is avoiding the "gated entrances".

This essentially adds further weight, for myself, in mapping the "local traffic only" areas as normal streets, and letting the driver decide whether to follow any suggestion of driving through the area.

For what it's worth, when driving to work via a particular route, Waze nearly always suggests diverting off the "minor highway" and onto residential streets (not necessarily Local Traffic Only areas) due to the volume of traffic. I always continue along the "minor highway". Usually when I take this route it is because the freeways are severely congested, so traffic volumes on that route are probably also higher than normal.

Apologies for the long-winded post, and any tangents contained in the above.

In conclusion, I would go with mapping Local Traffic Only areas as normal streets, and let the individual driver decide whether to take any suggested routes through such areas, or stay on the main roads.

Regards,

JohnB
[ img ]
25,000 Km Driven with Waze
33 Km Paved
jberkers42
 
Posts: 411
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:28 am
Location: Outer Eastern Suburbs, Melbourne
Has thanked: 249 times
Been thanked: 104 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby ituajr » Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:38 am

Traveling_Gav wrote:
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.

That's a very strange statement to make. Can you not see the increased risk caused by configuring Waze to encourage drivers to use a "local traffic only" segment? Don't you think it is prudent to reduce the risk?
[ img ] [ img ]
Country Manager for Australia.
70000 km driven with Waze, 2027 km paved, 7200 Update Requests resolved.
ituajr
Coordinators
Coordinators
 
Posts: 3184
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:23 pm
Location: South Australia
Has thanked: 357 times
Been thanked: 1709 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby ituajr » Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:22 am

ituajr wrote:
Traveling_Gav wrote:is there any debate about the legality of driving down a "local only street".

I agree there isn't. But by asking the wrong question, you're encouraging bad conclusions. A better question is "Are there any legal or other implications of using local traffic only streets for through traffic". Legal implications are more than just "is it an offence". For example, will there be any issues if there is an accident caused by someone ignoring the sign?

We haven't examined those issues yet. We started out with something like "it's not illegal, so we should be able to do it". I asserted that "it's not illegal" was not sufficient. I presented an example, in order to trigger people into thinking about what other implications there might be. The only response was instead that one person concluded there was very little risk involved. No indication that anyone has thought about other implications.

I'll make another assertion in another attempt to make people expand their perspective. You perform an action which is not illegal and does not encourage anything illegal. As a result of your activity, someone else starts an action which is not illegal, but then does something ridiculously stupid and is killed as a result. (Note the similarity with you editing the map, someone else using a "local traffic only" street for through traffic, and a subsequent death) You can charged with manslaughter. I'd regard that as an extremely unpleasant outcome, whether or not the charge results in a conviction. Anyone want to claim that this can't happen? Anyone want to claim it's just an exaggerated story in order to scare us?

I've presented an example of financial risk (being sued) and an example of criminal risk (manslaughter charges). Anyone want to claim they've fully thought through all the other legal implications? You can't sensibly claim that there is very little risk involved if you haven't even considered the possibilities.
[ img ] [ img ]
Country Manager for Australia.
70000 km driven with Waze, 2027 km paved, 7200 Update Requests resolved.
ituajr
Coordinators
Coordinators
 
Posts: 3184
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:23 pm
Location: South Australia
Has thanked: 357 times
Been thanked: 1709 times

PreviousNext

Return to Queensland

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users