Returning Editor and Reasoning

Moderators: Unholy, ps_au

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby GarvinGray » Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:29 am

DeadOnTheFloor wrote:I think this is something that needs a Waze answer, not a popularity poll.
I agree

This decision will become a precedent and could lead to this type of edit being replicated across the country.
And this is exactly why this situation needs a decision from Waze staff. I can see it lead to either a re-writing of the wiki, or an update, or creation of a new page about how to handle this situation.

I will say it is a shame that the arbitration requested has not happened.
It has only been a day and a half since ps_au made the offer to elevate this situation, but it is a shame that since then and that offer was accepted by myself and a course of action offered, that no reply has been forthcoming on where to from here from a level 6 editor.

A vote here is not a good direction to go as voters might not be aware of all the all ins and outs of the discussion and also the pros and cons of what has come before. Also voting can quite often be influenced by who is more passionate about an argument, or the level of the editors involved, rather than the substance of the debate.

I can see one issue though with leaving this issue to waze staff in Israel (or anywhere overseas). Policies they make might not be applicable Qld roads and laws.
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: 1953
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:00 am
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 96 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby GarvinGray » Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:24 am

PMG801 wrote:Drivers should be using mainroad, not shortcuts through local streets unless they are accessing a residence.

And again we go around in circles. Hence why we are asking for a ruling from Waze HQ staff, or higher officials on this issue.

'should'- you have not quoted any Transport and Main Road laws to support your statement, or waze wiki policies, or previous precedences of editing actions to back up your claim.

As an waze editor, you are placing your own personal judgement in place of possibly established protocols and guidelines. This can only lead to anarchy if all waze editors followed this practice.

Again, to repeat, this is why most of us are asking for a ruling from Waze staff on what to do here and I have asked for ps_au to respond on who should contact.

Time to just sit and wait for answer from ps_au for all of us.
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: 1953
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:00 am
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 96 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby GarvinGray » Tue Nov 21, 2017 12:20 pm

ps_au wrote: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.

In regards to contacting Waze staff:

Considering that when putting in requests for Area Manager requests, special permissions and many other requests, or asking general questions when beta updates are sent out- it is a common response from editors that Waze staff do not answer, would our query be better coming from a level 6 editor, or from the highest level Qld editor available?

In my opinion, contacting Waze staff, or at least being able to get more direct access to Waze staff and answers, is one of the roles of a level 6 editor.
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: 1953
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:00 am
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 96 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby GarvinGray » Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:50 am

I have not replied because I have been reading and re-reading the TMR rules and regulations and attempting to respond to ituajr's post to me. However, in that time TG has replied better than I could to this issue.
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: 1953
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:00 am
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 96 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby GarvinGray » Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:14 am

A little bit of background history to this thread.

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 replied that those areas are zoned are for information only are used to inform drivers that entering them will mean that a driver will usually be entering a 40km speed limit, speed humps, chicanes and other local traffic only devices to slow traffic down and deter rat runners.

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.

And also that waze's role is to provide the fastest route and to route what is legal.

Kai responded that he was not going to be changing the work he has done and believed his editing to be correct. I decided to wait to see if the discussion came up again via other editors. It has. This is that discussion.

The use of private roads is meant for private estates and the like and is meant to stop routing down it. Basically to stop drivers being routed to a dead end into a townhouse complex.

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. As we say on many other routes that waze offers, waze gives the fastest route based on previous speed data and conditions at the time, it is up to the driver to decide whether to follow the waze recommended route, or not.

The situation is the same here. It is not up to us as editors to manipulate the map to avoid the fastest, legal route. To do so introduces personal opinion into a matter that is supposed to be crystal clear. We map what is LEGAL, nothing more.


ituajr wrote:
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.
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: 1953
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:00 am
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 96 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby GarvinGray » Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:20 am

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.
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: 1953
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:00 am
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 96 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby DeadOnTheFloor » Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:30 am

PMG801 wrote: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...


Kids can't even play in their front yards now without adult supervision.
DeadOnTheFloor
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:55 am
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby DeadOnTheFloor » Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:36 am

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.
DeadOnTheFloor
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:55 am
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby DeadOnTheFloor » Thu Nov 23, 2017 4:06 am

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.
DeadOnTheFloor
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:55 am
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby DeadOnTheFloor » Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:15 am

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

https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comm ... the_facts/


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.
DeadOnTheFloor
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:55 am
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 2 times

PreviousNext

Return to Queensland

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users