Returning Editor and Reasoning

Moderators: Unholy, ps_au

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby ituajr » Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:53 am

Traveling_Gav wrote: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"

I don't think that's correct. Waze just applies a higher routing penalty. Waze will override such restrictions if there are no other options. We've seen an example of that in Brisbane (I think Fortitude Valley) recently, where Waze chose a red-arrowed turn when there were no valid exits from the segment. (Sorry, I can't instantly find the relevant segment.)

With the "local traffic only" restrictions in place, Waze doesn't prevent drivers from using those roads. It merely avoids using them under normal circumstances. If drivers choose to use shortcuts that are officially discouraged, that's their choice. We shouldn't be setting Waze up to encourage them - that would expose Waze to bad publicity if it became known that Waze was the cause of annoying traffic on those roads. Headline words like "irresponsible" and "violating traffic control signs" spring to mind.

(Posted after deliberately waiting 48 hours for emotions to calm down. I still don't understand why some people think "It's wrong, because I said so" constitutes logical reasoning.)
Image
64000 km driven with Waze, 2022 km paved, 6000 Update Requests resolved.
ituajr
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 1822
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:23 pm
Location: South Australia
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 838 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby ituajr » Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:47 am

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

So far you have failed to show why it's incorrect. You seem unable to grasp the basics of a logical discussion (such as "justify dogmatic statements"), so there's little point in engaging further with you.
Image
64000 km driven with Waze, 2022 km paved, 6000 Update Requests resolved.
ituajr
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 1822
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:23 pm
Location: South Australia
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 838 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby ituajr » Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:23 am

DeadOnTheFloor wrote:These are not PRIVATE ROADS.

I repeat, this time with emphasis: IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE DOGMATIC STATEMENTS, BACK THEM UP WITH FACTS. You're making one of the basic editing mistakes - Assuming road types are intuitively obvious: "Wrong: When deciding what type to apply to a road segment, I can rely on my intuitive conception of highways, ramps, streets, walking trails, et cetera." If you're going to assert that the private road type can't be used for this purpose, produce your source.

You then quote some nameless person from TMR, who said "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?

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.

More likely they couldn't find a practical way to do it. I certainly didn't know there was a way, and I congratulate that editor for finding a way and implementing it in accordance with the Wiki.

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

And yet somehow that editor "with questionable skills" managed to do it in the documented Best Practice way. What does that say about his skills relative to others?

I don't understand why some people are so keen to avoid arranging the map so that Waze does its routing in accordance with the clearly sign-posted intentions of the authorities. What is your objection to this? is it just a philosophical objection to the use of private roads? Would it be acceptable if they were parking lot roads?
Image
64000 km driven with Waze, 2022 km paved, 6000 Update Requests resolved.
ituajr
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 1822
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:23 pm
Location: South Australia
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 838 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby ituajr » Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:11 am

GarvinGray wrote: [...]

You've made a number of dogmatic statements without providing any verifiable facts to justify them. Ideally, you would provide a URL and quote the relevant piece of text. Here, let me show you how it's done
Kaiglynn and I previously exchanged private messages back and forth a couple of weeks or so ago over the use of the 'short' private roads to connect 'street' to 'street' after he contacted Transport and Main Roads and was advised that drivers should be advised to avoid local traffic only zones.
I also said those signs are no legal enforcement and police can not issue tickets for drivers going down them, even if it is for a short cut.

Australian Road Rules "97—Road access signs: (1) A driver must not drive on a length of road to which a road access sign applies if information on or with the sign indicates that the driver or the driver's vehicle is not permitted beyond the sign." (I quote the SA copy of the legislation because the Queensland TMR website has a rabbit warren of pages labeled "Road Rules" and I was unable to find the actual Road Rules.)

Further, Queensland Traffic Instructions Signs: "Local traffic only signs: A local traffic sign is for traffic accessing the local area. Through traffic should continue using the main roads."

If you're going to claim that these signs have no legal significance, you need to provide some legally-supportable evidence to justify your position.
Private roads are not meant to be used to link street to street here where the route is legal and is potentially the fastest route.

And yet: Private Road (Australia): "A road not intended for use by through traffic. Waze will only use a private road segment when routing to a destination on that private road or an attached private or parking lot road. Do not mark a public dead-end street as a private road."

And Road Types: " Private Road  may be used for a public street that has a legally enforceable sign for local traffic only."

I would point out that the last link also says "However, using private roads in some of these situations may require more complex mapping as covered in the article Private Installations. Be sure to read through that article before setting a whole neighborhood to all private roads." That link has complex rules for using private/parking lot roads to control access to but not through certain areas. It suggests locking the special private roads to prevent inexperienced editors from "fixing" them. Let's hope that is not necessary here.
Image
64000 km driven with Waze, 2022 km paved, 6000 Update Requests resolved.
ituajr
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 1822
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:23 pm
Location: South Australia
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 838 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby ituajr » Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:21 am

GarvinGray wrote:I do not agree with the use of the private roads solution for 'local traffic only' sign restriction, but I do not understand your routes and examples that you have given either, so can not offer any further feedback on your response ituajr.

You may not have zoomed in enough to see the private sections - they're very short. Here, for example, is the one on Laurier St, relevant to my examples 7 and 8.
Image
64000 km driven with Waze, 2022 km paved, 6000 Update Requests resolved.
ituajr
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 1822
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:23 pm
Location: South Australia
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 838 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby ituajr » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:29 am

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

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

That looks to me like an ingenious way of implementing the "Local Traffic Only" restriction.

Routes into the area work:
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3

Routes out of the area work:
Example 4
Example 5
Example 6

Routes through the area are avoided, even when the alternative is much longer:
Example 7
Example 8

Why do you think this is "misuse" - what problems are you expecting?
Image
64000 km driven with Waze, 2022 km paved, 6000 Update Requests resolved.
ituajr
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 1822
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:23 pm
Location: South Australia
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 838 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby glomp » Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:24 am

A reminder to everyone regarding Waze Etiquitte.

Here are a few important points to consider.
Wazeopedia wrote:
  • Assume good faith. Editors are here to collaborate and improve Waze for everyone.
  • Be civil, polite, and avoid offensive language. We define this the same way as Wikipedia.
  • Although it is understandably difficult in an intense argument, if other editors are not as civil as you would like them to be, be more civil, not less. That way at least you are not moving towards open conflict and name-calling; by your own action you are actively doing something about it.
  • Be courteous.
  • Forgive and forget.
  • Work towards agreement.
  • Argue facts, not personalities.
  • Do not make misrepresentations.
  • Do not ignore reasonable questions.
  • Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree.

Everyone can be passionate about how they see something should be done. However, this should be done by working together, if you don't then no change can come about.

Regardless of your editor level, everyone has the right to discuss things in a calm and civil manner.

Remember, we are all volunteers, no one is forcing us to make edits to the map.

But if you choose to edit the map, we have guidelines in place that Waze and the established editing community have worked out that apply to how we edit and how we act when doing so.

Editing should be fun, if you are not having fun while doing so then maybe you should ask yourself should you continue editing the map.

We all work together to improve the map for the thousands of users who use the app, we chose to become editors. The users rely on us to help make the map better for them.

Helping each other helps everyone.
ImageImage
Austraila Wiki | CA: Australia
glomp
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 1935
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:49 pm
Location: Western Australia
Has thanked: 436 times
Been thanked: 961 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby GarvinGray » Sat Jan 06, 2018 2:39 pm

DeadOnTheFloor wrote:There is also a huge difference, and please don't start me on this, between OpenMaps attribution and Wazes' unwillingness to add any attribution to maps.

So the way in which we get data into the map, differs to open maps in the resources we can use.

There is a list somewhere of what we can use to edit with, the rest falls into a not grey area. Waze says No.

To samondelwing,

Welcome to waze editing.

In regards to the above, I will explain a bit more. When you first signed up to waze, you ticked a box that agreed to terms of service and part of that terms of service was about copyright and not infringing it and using your own work in improving the map (lay speak).

Different map services are professional services and all have copyright provisions written into their terms of service. street.directory.com.au for instance have a very clear copyright provision in their terms of service.

We can use google maps and their street view because google maps bought waze in 2013, so their is a relationship between the two. But for other map making services, they are basically off limits.

This means you can not just go and copy their maps and add them to waze.

Editors in the past have done in this in a couple of countries and it has meant that their work has had to be deleted.
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: 1213
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:00 am
Has thanked: 36 times
Been thanked: 178 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby GarvinGray » Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:57 am

I have moved your comments around in order because I think there is an order of priority for other readers. Personal opinion of course-

This whole discussion leaves me disappointed with the behaviour of those editors, and discourages me from taking part in the community any more.

You are not the first editor to express a dissatisfaction with how this discussion has taken place. It would not surprise me if it was the overriding opinion of everyone who has taken part.

Different editors have different reasons for being upset at the events that have transpired, but when editors of different levels of experience and differing opinions are left to their own devices to work out a solution, not everyone is going to be happy with the final outcome and it is rare that there is a final decision made. Quite often it is a compromise that leaves everyone sour.

Now maybe this reflects how I see how the waze community levels work- but I could see this outcome occurring when the offer to elevate this discussion was offered and then the person who made the offer when silent. And then especially after that same editor was being criticised in this discussion and did not respond.

If you make an offer to do something, one or more people take you up on that offer and then you fail to do what you say you are going to do, then it is going to leave a sour taste in editors mouths.

Yes, it was said that the odds of hearing from Waze HQ on this was next to zero, but an answer from the head honchos from Australia in their place would have been better than what we got, which was zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

And so we battled on and ended up with a fragmented community, appeals for harmony and to work together, more kumbuya garbage, but still having to forge a new direction on our own.

And here we are.

I continue to believe that the underlying reason for the dissent is that some people want to use the rat runs

I have chopped your sentence in half as for me this part draws an incorrect conclusion.

I have always maintained that waze is meant to achieve the following objectives:

1) Route what is legal and the driver is then responsible for making all decisions over safety, whether they like the route etc
2) Provide the best route possible

I have never mentioned anything about setting waze up for 'rat runs'. Examples were given that showed how the 'local traffic only' gate system was difficult to implement, or cut across other policies, such as Barclay St Deagon, which is a Primary St and so waze is meant to route down that Street.

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.

Yes, we did start this discussion with the premise that this might be a precedent for how to apply it to the whole of Australia, but as the discussion evolved and more contributions were added, the collective feeling from the Qld signs was that this was a Qld issue.

It is possible that another State or Territory might have more clearly labelled signs, rather than the ambiguous 'local traffic only' signs we have for this purpose.

If that is the case, then another State can have their discussion. It is quite common for different states to have different road rules, or different wiki interpretations. Qld has them for how to apply minor highways in rural and outback areas. There are other examples as well for other States.
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: 1213
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:00 am
Has thanked: 36 times
Been thanked: 178 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby GarvinGray » Wed Dec 06, 2017 11:02 am

So, decided to return to this thread now that this thread has a fair chance to wash itself out and more editors have commented.

In summary, all Qld editors believe that the 'gate' system is difficult to implement and may not work as intended. So far this issue has only been discussed in regards to Qld and so I believe it only applies to Qld under our policies and laws.

Since we have not received support or feedback from Waze HQ as offers to elevate this issue higher up were not done, it has been left to us to 'sort out'.

One Qld State manager, two Qld area managers and various other Qld editors do not support the gating system, all basically for the same reason.

As we asked for a higher opinion and the highest opinion we have received is our State manager, I believe we should proceed with that opinion. That is why we have State Managers after all, isn't it?

I am aware of the acknowledged legal issues, but I believe that theclem54 has addressed these and I defer to his judgement as Qld State Manager and this is a Qld issue.

Deadonthefloor, you offered to reverse the 'gate' system? Does this still stand?
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: 1213
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:00 am
Has thanked: 36 times
Been thanked: 178 times

PreviousNext

Return to Queensland

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users