Returning Editor and Reasoning

Moderator: delilush

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby Traveling_Gav » Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:18 am

ituajr wrote:I've presented an example of financial risk (being sued) and an example of criminal risk (manslaughter charges).


I just don't share your assessment of the likelihood of these outcomes occurring. I have not heard of this happening to anyone. Google maps and Apple maps don't avoid using these streets. We will see what others think though.

I would be interested in hearing how you would propose addressing the issues of "gating" non-"local only" streets and ensuring routing into the area is not affected.
[ img ][ img ]
AM: QLD and Central NSW
Traveling_Gav
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:01 am
Has thanked: 360 times
Been thanked: 313 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby ituajr » Fri Dec 01, 2017 5:52 am

Traveling_Gav wrote:
ituajr wrote:I've presented an example of financial risk (being sued) and an example of criminal risk (manslaughter charges).


[...] I have not heard of this happening to anyone.

I have intentionally waited 48 hours for anyone to take up my challenge in the "manslaughter" example - "Anyone want to claim that this can't happen?" No-one has. Perhaps you've all realised that I can usually back up my statements. Just to complete the story, it did happen.
Notice the similarity with someone making edits without thinking about consequences, not doing a risk assessment, and someone dying? Doing a risk assessment provides a useful defence against claims that you acted recklessly.

The point I've been making all along is that we can't sensibly assert the risks are minimal without having identified them. Early on I asked "Are there any legal or other implications of using local traffic only streets for through traffic". Nobody said "Oh, yes, we should think about the consequences. I wonder what consequences there are?" I tried to provoke some thinking about the subject by referring to the legal implications and the social implications. Nobody said "Didn't think of that. I wonder what other implications I didn't think of?" I prodded you all again with the example of being sued. Again nobody said "Didn't think of that. I wonder what other implications I didn't think of?" I made yet another attempt, this time being blatant about it: "No indication that anyone has thought about other implications. I'll make another assertion in another attempt to make people expand their perspective." Again nobody said "Didn't think of that. I wonder what other implications I didn't think of?" Is no-one aware of their limitations, or are everyone's eyes just glazing over?

Remember, we're supposed to be debating "Should Waze discourage the use of "local traffic only" roads for through traffic". It's up to the "against" team to present a case that shows why through-routing is desirable (that's easy) along with a statement such as "we've considered all the downsides and consider that they do not present a significant risk". It's not up to me to think of all those downsides for you, and I don't claim to have thought of them all.
[ img ] [ img ]
Country Manager for Australia.
70000 km driven with Waze, 2027 km paved, 7200 Update Requests resolved.
ituajr
Coordinators
Coordinators
 
Posts: 3082
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:23 pm
Location: South Australia
Has thanked: 325 times
Been thanked: 1661 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby GarvinGray » Fri Dec 01, 2017 6:15 am

Remember, we're supposed to be debating "Should Waze discourage the use of "local traffic only" roads for through traffic". It's up to the "against" team to present a case that shows why through-routing is desirable (that's easy) along with a statement such as "we've considered all the downsides and consider that they do not present a significant risk".

It's not up to me to think of all those downsides for you, and I don't claim to have thought of them all.


I have completely lost interest in this whole topic and all positions. The nature of the debate, that claims are being made that editors can be sued on this issue, when I have shown other areas and these have not been responded to, have left me with the feeling that this whole thread is a complete waste of time.

I have held back until now, to give enough days for a response, for my complete displeasure and my vote of no confidence in ps_au on this topic and how it has been handled.

A few days ago there was an offer from him to elevate this discussion to Waze HQ, which I wanted done and no reply from him has been forthcoming. In that time, other editors have been making claims that editors can be sued for the edits they can make and still no response on this issue.

For level 6 editors and State Managers to be silent whilst claims of editors being able to be sued for being volunteers is in my opinion is a major breach of their responsibility as leaders of this community.

As far as I am concerned, I have lost faith in the leadership of the waze community and since there has been no pushback against the concept that I can be sued for my work as a volunteer, I hereby tender my resignation as a waze editor. It will take a lot of explanations from the leadership to change my mind.
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 ituajr » Fri Dec 01, 2017 6:55 am

Traveling_Gav wrote:[...]I would be interested in hearing how you would propose addressing the issues of "gating" non-"local only" streets and ensuring routing into the area is not affected.

I would propose not using "gating" where it would interfere with routing on normal streets. To give an idea of how I would express this, here's a suggested wording for a Wiki explanation:

"Local Traffic Only", "Local Traffic Area" and similar signs.
It is often possible to configure Waze to avoid routing through such roads, while still permitting access to destinations within the "local" area. The process is tricky, and should only be done after consultation with an experienced editor. Points to be considered are:
  • If the signs are regulatory rather than advisory, the restriction should be applied in Waze if it is possible to do so
  • If the area or street concerned is not completely bounded by such signs, it may not be possible to implement the restrictions completely or at all. It is important to avoid affecting routing on "normal" streets
  • The technique involves using short segments of "private" road type at the location of the signs.
    Waze applies a heavy penalty to the transition from private roads to normal streets, but will cross the "gate" (as it is sometimes called) if there is no other way to get to the destination.


As an aside, I see that "No Through Road" sometimes means "Local Traffic Only" rather than "there's no other way out of there". There's an example here. Clyde St and Victoria Dr each have yellow "No Through Road" signs on the light poles with the intersection of Reservoir Rd, but you can drive down one and out the other. That's why I referred to "other similar signs" above.
[ img ] [ img ]
Country Manager for Australia.
70000 km driven with Waze, 2027 km paved, 7200 Update Requests resolved.
ituajr
Coordinators
Coordinators
 
Posts: 3082
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:23 pm
Location: South Australia
Has thanked: 325 times
Been thanked: 1661 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby ituajr » Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:49 am

GarvinGray wrote:[...]
I have completely lost interest in this whole topic and all positions. The nature of the debate, that claims are being made that editors can be sued on this issue, when I have shown other areas and these have not been responded to, have left me with the feeling that this whole thread is a complete waste of time.

You told us on 28 Nov 2017 15:26 (more than 3 days ago):
GarvinGray wrote:As for my participation in this discussion. I have lost interest as I have nothing new to add.

I somehow assumed this meant you weren't interested in any further discussion of your points. And I wasn't aware you had any points that I hadn't responded to. If you'd care to refer us to the posting(s) where you made them, I'll do my best to respond.
I have held back until now, to give enough days for a response, for my complete displeasure and my vote of no confidence in ps_au on this topic and how it has been handled.
[...]
As far as I am concerned, I have lost faith in the leadership of the waze community and since there has been no pushback against the concept that I can be sued for my work as a volunteer, I hereby tender my resignation as a waze editor. It will take a lot of explanations from the leadership to change my mind.

You can hardly blame ps_au or any other editor for failure to get Waze HQ to provide any sort of decision.
[ img ] [ img ]
Country Manager for Australia.
70000 km driven with Waze, 2027 km paved, 7200 Update Requests resolved.
ituajr
Coordinators
Coordinators
 
Posts: 3082
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:23 pm
Location: South Australia
Has thanked: 325 times
Been thanked: 1661 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby ituajr » Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:19 am

GarvinGray wrote: [...]since there has been no pushback against the concept that I can be sued for my work as a volunteer, I hereby tender my resignation as a waze editor.

I should add that I agree with Traveling_Gav that the likelihood of a serious outcome is extremely low, certainly less than your chance of being involved in a serious accident in years of driving. I wouldn't suggest that anyone give up editing because of the risk - just that we avoid map configurations that expose us to increased risk. Showing that we carefully considered the implications, did a risk analysis, and came to an agreement should demonstrate that we didn't act recklessly.
[ img ] [ img ]
Country Manager for Australia.
70000 km driven with Waze, 2027 km paved, 7200 Update Requests resolved.
ituajr
Coordinators
Coordinators
 
Posts: 3082
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:23 pm
Location: South Australia
Has thanked: 325 times
Been thanked: 1661 times

Re: Returning Editor and Reasoning

Postby Traveling_Gav » Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:18 pm

ituajr I quite like your suggested wiki entry if it comes to that.

I still can't bring myself to be concerned about possible legal ramifications though. Whilst I appreciate the effort you are going to to provide examples to illustrate your point we haven't been able to find an actual case where conscious online map editing decisions or errors of omission have led to an accident let alone repercussions for the map provider. My memory of newspaper reports is that the driver is at fault if they do something dumb like drive onto a runway or into a lake. In the Apple case they said sorry we are working on it and there was no legal backlash other than the police saying it was "life threatening".

There is no doubt that ones action or inaction can lead to fatal consequences in some circumstances. I can only assume though, given the lack of diversity in contributors to this thread, that others don't have a view on this matter. It would be handy to have people say something to get a feel for where people stand even without any justification.

I also agree with GG that it would be handy to just have a decision made by Waze HQ but as I said that is unlikely to happen. There is no governance of the Waze map just a bunch of people who decide they will donate their time to look after it as best they can. Why Waze HQ treats those people with contempt is beyond me.

I still think that the problems outweigh any benefits. The problems are essentially routing issues. Here are some I can think of:
- When roads are blocked (accident) or cutoff (flooding) to change the map will result in those routes becoming unavailable (unless you drive into an area where the only option is to pass one of the private road segments).
- No other major map provider is avoiding these streets
- A "local" who wants to drive across their suburb to the shops will be routed the long way.
- Looking at Kangaroo Pt. A driver might be going to rock climb and park on River Tce. They aren't therefore using the street to rat run to home they are going to park at the end of the "local only street" (on River Tce) so why would Waze route them all the way down Main St in the traffic just to turn around at the north end and drive back down? Additionally there is metered parking in these streets so would that not suggest that it is OK to drive down the street if you are going to park there (And no I don't mean it was the destination you might be driving to River Tce and will take the first park you can find)? (Disclaimer I am a rock climber)

So I wont lose sleep if we decide to "gate" off these streets but I think it will result in poor routing for many people in and around these areas that isn't the intention of the sign.
[ img ][ img ]
AM: QLD and Central NSW
Traveling_Gav
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:01 am
Has thanked: 360 times
Been thanked: 313 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: 470
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:55 am
Has thanked: 269 times
Been thanked: 40 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: 476
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:04 am
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 31 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: 470
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:55 am
Has thanked: 269 times
Been thanked: 40 times

PreviousNext

Return to Queensland

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users