Returning Editor and Reasoning

Moderators: Unholy, ps_au

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby PMG801 » Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:50 am

USA FAA indicates should is the same as may and is no longer used in FAA publications.

https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/p ... mandatory/
PMG801
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:04 am
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby PMG801 » Thu Nov 23, 2017 4:03 am

Traveling_Gav wrote:Could not agree more however on this topic there is an impasse. Some believe the Waze map should be drawn to deny rat running and others think the map should be drawn to reflect what is legally allowed.
Previously on these types of questions we have maintained the view that we map what is legally allowed. I personally support this as it takes the subjectivity out of it.
Right now we have the current situation where one editor goes through and adds a bunch of "gates" and then another comes along and removes them!
Should we have a vote?


We wouldn't be having this issue if QLD Gov weren't so flaky on word choices i.e 'should'.
PMG801
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:04 am
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby PMG801 » Fri Nov 24, 2017 2:14 am

I think the gating of local roads has caused this UR to come through for Kangaroo Point.

https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=row&lo ... t=11419887
PMG801
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:04 am
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 6 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: 142
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:04 am
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby PMG801 » Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:26 pm

This is why kids can't play in the streets anymore because people use Local Only Streets as rat runs just to get to work/home a couple of minutes quicker...
PMG801
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:04 am
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby PMG801 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:32 am

I don't support gating, but we shouldn't be using local streets for rat runs.
PMG801
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:04 am
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby PMG801 » Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:02 am

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: 142
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:04 am
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby ps_au » Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:57 am

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
Australia Waze Champs
Australia Waze Champs
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:13 am
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Has thanked: 583 times
Been thanked: 461 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby theclem54 » Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:30 am

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
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 979
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:42 am
Location: Brisbane
Has thanked: 233 times
Been thanked: 292 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby Traveling_Gav » Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:21 am

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
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:01 am
Has thanked: 316 times
Been thanked: 178 times

PreviousNext

Return to Queensland

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users