Revisiting Lock Level Standards - Regional

Coordinator: ottonomy & ARC: tonestertm
------------------------------------------------------------

Moderators: delilush, tonestertm, ottonomy

Revisiting Lock Level Standards - Regional

Postby Fredo-p » Sat Jan 10, 2015 4:24 am

REVISITING LOCK LEVEL STANDARDS

With the recent map vandalism that went on on TX, the discussion of heightening lock levels for MH and mH has come up. Many are suggesting to set them to R4.

As it may take some time for a national standard to be reached, it is important for the regions to also take part in the discussion and get the ball rolling. The Great Lakes Region has already been in full discussion with this. The thread can be found here.

Let's get this discussion going and figure out what this region thinks. Invite all your local editors in on this discussion to get everyones opinion.
[ img ][ img ]
Arizona Wiki | @Waze_Arizona Twitter
Verizon Samsung Galaxy S8+

Fredo-p
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 2007
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 4:35 am
Location: Everywhere
Has thanked: 269 times
Been thanked: 643 times

Re: Revisiting Lock Level Standards - Regional

Postby DwarfLord » Sat Jan 10, 2015 4:41 am

Sorry to hear about the vandalism. I hope something will be written up about it, as it could be a useful case study.

There are two sides to the locking coin. One is the lock level. The other is our process for promotion, demotion, and blocking. They go together; we can't talk about one without the other.

Saying that lock levels are too low is identical to saying that promotion is too easy, demotion too rare, and blocking too hard.

I would rather see us evolve better strategies for promotion, demotion, and blocking than to respond to isolated events by placing more of the map out of reach of good editors.
DwarfLord
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 2498
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:01 pm
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains, California USA
Has thanked: 1085 times
Been thanked: 1474 times

Re: Revisiting Lock Level Standards - Regional

Postby SuperDave1426 » Sat Jan 10, 2015 5:11 am

I'm also sorry to hear about the map being vandalized in TX. I'm going to assume here that it's known for a fact that there was deliberate intent and not someone making a mistake. What exactly happened, and where in TX, if I may ask?

There's always going to be a trade-off when you have a community editing staff. Make it too hard for new editors to get anything done without constantly having to ask someone to finish it/lower it/whatever it, and I fear we may lose people who would otherwise evolve into really good editors.

Personally, I think that there still needs to be a certain amount of flexibility in lock rank levels by Region. "One size fits all" on a mandatory basis country-wide can be to restrictive in certain areas. Lock it tighter where needed, and where there's a high enough volume of editors to where things can be impacted.

For example, in most of northern/rural NV, ramps and freeways are locked at R4 or R5. In Vegas, they're pretty much all R5, all the time.

What we've pretty much been using in NV is this:

Freeway/Ramp - R4 or R5
MH - R3
mH/PS - R2
Street/PLR/Private/Dirt - R1

It's been working well here; I don't see a need for higher lock levels on the types of roads here because of something that happened in another state. I think those numbers are currently the recommended US lock ranks, other than possibly the freeways & ramps (though at one time I remember reading something saying that those should be R4 or R5 - if that's changed to a hard-and-fast R5, I wasn't aware of it).

Per other recommendations that I've seen, I've been locking places based on certain criteria. Any emergency service (fire/police/medical) gets a R3 lock on it, gas stations get at least a R2, airports get at least a R2. In the L.A. Raid area, I locked gas stations at R3 because the Wiki for the Raid said to use that rank level there.

I've also been locking some more general places at R2 just because there have been "trusted submitters" who can now add pictures without being flagged for review if those places are just at the default R1 (and most of the drivers doing those submissions are only a R1 by default), and there have been unusable pictures that I've caught and deleted. By locking those places to R2, "trusted submitters" at R1 still get flagged for review, which makes pictures like that a LOT easier to find and keep off the map. And it doesn't take that long for an actual new editor to reach R2 level, so it doesn't create much of a "hardship" on them.
SuperDave1426
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:27 pm
Location: Nevada, USA
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 271 times

Re: Revisiting Lock Level Standards - Regional

Postby MojaveCactusMonkey » Sat Jan 10, 2015 6:41 am

I sympathize with the local editors dealing with deletion of some mH and MH roads with no trace in TX. I don't know the extent, but certainly is a headache and an insult to the editors that worked so hard to get the roads to where they were navigable. I offer my help to them if they wish.

I think the problem with large metro areas is the possibility for vandalism from visiting editors or from rebelious teenagers getting their hands on their parents laptop. The knee jerk reaction to lock higher may really not be so much about the worries about actual editing, but a visiting editor can simply delete without doing any traceable editing and being only a rank 2 or grandfathered 3 (with less than 25,000 edits) could cause deletions of mH and MH in Nevada without being noticed until UR's start showing up perhaps days later, and causing many many hours of work to fix. If we lock higher, then it doesn't keep someone from creating a parking lot road and trying to attach it to the locked road, but we will find it with validator as not being attached. So I don't see any drawbacks to locking higher, because I don't see it preventing a new editor from trying to edit the roads that truly need editing. I do see it as being incentive to learning how to edit and finding a way to communicate with more experienced editors. I see it mentoring lower ranking editors that they focus on tweaking the main roads and completely ignore the obvious needs on the ps and streets, and even parking lot roads still needed to access businesses off the main collectors and arterials. Unfortunately, sometimes the best new editors actually don't like to socialize as much on PM's, gho or now slack. Admitably on the behalf of new editors, working on more important roads generate a much higher satisfaction level and feeling of making an impact. This is WHY more communication with new editors is so much MORE important as the US map is maturing than ever before. They may even read the wiki and try to work on the roads they drive to work and shopping, just to discover they can't. If we don't establish required communication earlier with new well intentioned editors, then yes... we will disenchant them by not allowing them to edit. What tools do AM's, SM's and RC's have to communicate with new editors? We have to kind of just find them by their mistakes and hope they eventually check their private messages IF they've set it up on their profile.

I think we need to emphasize reading the basic wiki prior to going very far with edits, maybe a checklist of reading requirements before getting to rank 2, and additional advanced wiki reading and state and regional forum awareness before getting rank 3. At least an acknowledgement that the material is available for reading. There is a continuing need to keep new editors from being "invisible" and also not having their profile set up to have a working email or PM's. Places being added by "trusted" Wazers has an obvious need to improve on standards both on adding the places as well as approving the places. (to include appropriate pictures)

I subscribe to the idea of major metro areas being a higher lock standard than rural areas. One particular reason being newer editors not understanding FC standards and a rank 2 trying to change a mH back to ps because they don't think the road segment qualifies for anything with the name "highway" in it. The same could even apply for editors with some history that have rank 3 that change MH to a lower level and ignoring a FC conversion. There is a possibility that even within the city itself, major impact roads (Like S Las Vegas Blvd / AKA "The Strip" should be locally locked even higher than the FC would imply.

FW & ramps 5
MH 4 URBAN / 3 rural
mH 3 URBAN / 2 rural
ps 2
st 1
At grade connectors locked at highest lock on connecting segment

5/4/3/2/1 easy to remember sort of?

The reason I would want a higher lock in urban areas for MH or mH is that in NV we have essentially matured the map to the point that we know they are accurate enough for a lock, and we have established communication with the active area editors. ALSO the reason for higher lock on mH and MH is that in Large Metro areas like Las Vegas, we have a huge influx of 41 million airport passengers a year from all over the world, and many drivers that have their own standards in their own parts of the world that might try to edit Las Vegas without reading the Nevada Wiki page or even understanding US standards and try their hand at editing. I don't think in NV we are exempt from waze "terrorist" activities and deleting roads.

Perhaps the real issue here is that we need an automatic alert in Waze that identifies any editor based on rank that is deleting more than one ps, mH and MH. Realistically, when is there any need to delete more than one or two roads designated as ps or higher?
MojaveCactusMonkey
Map Raider
Map Raider
 
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:28 am
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 156 times

Re: Revisiting Lock Level Standards - Regional

Postby JJohnston84 » Sat Jan 10, 2015 7:29 am

Bad Behavior
As someone who recently got Level 3, and only from mentorship and map raid promotion - not even edit count, this change in my area (Los Angeles) would make me hang up my hat and leave Waze map editing. It is, 100%, the wrong approach to solving this problem.

1.) It won't stop vandalism. It's only a matter of time before a level 4, 5, or 6 goes off the rails and destroys something in a big way. What then, bump major highways to level 5? Keep escalating?
2.) It encourages bad edits. I could sit around wiggling segments to get my edit numbers up. Better yet, I could write a script to do it for me. But I don't, because at least I don't feel it necessary to actually get my level to the place I need it to do meaningful edits. Make it so I need 100k to effectively reach what is, right now, level 3, and such bad behavior is far more tempting.
3.) It alienates smart, well-intentioned editors from participation.

Roll-backs, the right solution to vandalism
I know some of you are not software developers, so the solution to this may not be obvious. But, for those of you who are developers, you should know it is complete insanity that Waze isn't exposing complete revision history to the relevant parties. Rolling back should be in the toolset. Transactions should be recorded.

It'd be utter insanity if I could walk into work and delete all my company's source code. And I can't. I could try, but it would be trivial for any other developer to simply roll back my last changeset and undo all the damage. Waze should be no different. I know there is some nuance in branching/merging data, but this is not an insurmountable obstacle. There is a ton of precedent for dealing with this in the realm of source control, and I don't know why Waze's toolset isn't following suit.

Until we get rollbacks
Here are a few ideas that are better controls to helping alleviate bad edits until we get the tools we need:
1.) Make mentorship mandatory. No one should hit level 2 without mentor training in my opinion. Make mentorship a formal institution. If you can't communicate with other human beings, we don't want you in the map editor anyway. Likewise, make advancing to the higher levels require mentoring others. You solidify knowledge when you have to start teaching others. This would be a huge win for the community.
2.) Edit counts should be removed from the rank chart on the wiki. It's useful info for someone issuing promotions to have, but it needs to stop being a goal for editors. Rank increases should only come from experienced editors recognizing your understanding and quality of work. For some, that could be in a few edits - others will take thousands. Make having to sell yourself to your peers part of the advancement process. There should be no default edit count to fall back on as a means for promotion.

We need help from the Waze devs
Nothing we editors can do actually solves the risk of vandalism. One could easily, with a brand new account, do insane amounts of damage to the Waze map in the period of about a week. I won't detail how in a public forum, but the point is that none of the volunteer editors have the toolset to deal with such vandalism right now. This is a system and infrastructure failure and the only ones that can really fix it are the Waze developers. I'm hoping such a fix is already in the works.

Edit, Another idea: make deletion require 1 rank higher than all other forms of the lock. In other words, if a segment is locked at 2, you would need level 3 to delete. But, all other activities could be done at 2.
-- Jacob
[ img ]
JJohnston84
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 3:45 pm
Location: Southern California, USA
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 52 times

Re: Revisiting Lock Level Standards - Regional

Postby MojaveCactusMonkey » Sat Jan 10, 2015 12:51 pm

Jacob wrote
Edit, Another idea: make deletion require 1 rank higher than all other forms of the lock. In other words, if a segment is locked at 2, you would need level 3 to delete. But, all other activities could be done at 2.


Now I like this idea!!
MojaveCactusMonkey
Map Raider
Map Raider
 
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:28 am
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 156 times

Re: Revisiting Lock Level Standards - Regional

Postby JJohnston84 » Sat Jan 10, 2015 4:08 pm

MojaveCactusMonkey wrote:
Jacob wrote
Edit, Another idea: make deletion require 1 rank higher than all other forms of the lock. In other words, if a segment is locked at 2, you would need level 3 to delete. But, all other activities could be done at 2.


Now I like this idea!!


The more I thought about it, I think that we would need 2 lock levels exposed in the UI: a delete lock level, and an editing lock level. The problem is, you wouldn't want a situation where someone can create a segment by accident and then not delete it (I.e., a level 1 unable to delete his own segment until level 2). This would quickly clutter the map. You also don't want people to be able to simply just lower the lock level and then be able to delete. For example, If locking were set at 2, which meant only a 3 could delete it, then the level 2 editor could just lower it to 1 before deleting. If one merged two segments together - it should inherit the highest delete level defined.

But essentially, how often does one delete non-level 1 segments? It's really rare. Even when Undividing a road, I'm still not deleting segments. What I do need access to on a daily basis, as a level 3, is the ability to connect PLRs, divide, undivide, and modify turn restrictions on MHs. I would be loathe to lose that ability. Thus, I would be totally fine with MHs having a delete capability out of my level range - as long as I could do those other things.
-- Jacob
[ img ]
JJohnston84
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 3:45 pm
Location: Southern California, USA
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 52 times

Re: Revisiting Lock Level Standards - Regional

Postby ply8808 » Sat Jan 10, 2015 4:36 pm

I for one have changed my view on locks several times, each time was based on more experiences with the issues involved.
After seeing firsthand the destruction in this recent issue I feel that a minimum of lock 3 on PS/mH is justifiable, with MH at 4 and Freeway/Ramp at 5.
This could be viewed as a knee jerk reaction but considering the damage and outcome there must be consideration for protecting the map even if it means extra effort on both junior and senior editors.
My thoughts above are suggestions to the national standard but want to address the rural and AM concerns. Due to the possibility of an out of the way area being damaged we could consider these locks and make adjustments for areas that become managed, if an editor is given an area then we could adjust some of the standards to meet their rank so they can be efficient, this would be due to the confidence we have in them for the responsibility of AM and the known oversight of that area and any damage would be noticed quickly by that AM.
Some may argue that an SM has rights to an entire state, or that CMs to the entire country and they should be able to find these issues quickly........that would be the individuals who are not aware of the size and scope of which is being discussed or the additional responsibilities that come with these roles.
Locking roads is not the end of editing for junior editors, it is an opportunity to get more involved with senior editors and to gain editing, research, visibility and become great editors with their commitment.
Global Champ
Local Champ - USA
Regional Coordinator - Northwest Region
Assistant Regional Coordinator - Mid Atlantic Region
HD riding wazer, Arizona.
iPhone 7, iOS 12.1.4
ply8808
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:35 am
Location: Arizona, USA
Has thanked: 2246 times
Been thanked: 1545 times

Re: Revisiting Lock Level Standards - Regional

Postby SuperDave1426 » Sat Jan 10, 2015 4:48 pm

MojaveCactusMonkey wrote:[...] If we don't establish required communication earlier with new well intentioned editors, then yes... we will disenchant them by not allowing them to edit. What tools do AM's, SM's and RC's have to communicate with new editors? We have to kind of just find them by their mistakes and hope they eventually check their private messages IF they've set it up on their profile.

Yea, that's a big problem anywhere. I really think the Waze devs (who are the only ones who can help us here in this regard, IMO) need to make some serious changes to help with this. I've always believed that to be able to edit the map, you should have an established forum account with a verified E-Mail address so that you can get notifications when a PM comes in. Once the chat window became available, I quickly became of the opinion that R1/R2 editors should not be able to hide the chat window and should not be able to go invisible. We need to be able to see them and interact with them! Communication is extremely important, especially at early stages when the guy who watched that video now thinks he understands how to do edits right and jumps in.

But without either requirement, we're pretty much hamstrung.

I think we need to emphasize reading the basic wiki prior to going very far with edits, maybe a checklist of reading requirements before getting to rank 2, and additional advanced wiki reading and state and regional forum awareness before getting rank 3. At least an acknowledgement that the material is available for reading. There is a continuing need to keep new editors from being "invisible" and also not having their profile set up to have a working email or PM's. Places being added by "trusted" Wazers has an obvious need to improve on standards both on adding the places as well as approving the places. (to include appropriate pictures)

Yea, given that a driver only has to report 10 places that get approved by an editor to now be "trusted," there's still lots of opportunities to end up with blurry, upside-down, non-useful, or even inappropriate pictures to be added after the fact. Currently, not much that we can do about them adding a new place, but for existing places I've been locking to R2 when I work on them, which will hold up any updates they submit (pic, info) for approval. At least it's something....

I subscribe to the idea of major metro areas being a higher lock standard than rural areas. One particular reason being newer editors not understanding FC standards and a rank 2 trying to change a mH back to ps because they don't think the road segment qualifies for anything with the name "highway" in it. The same could even apply for editors with some history that have rank 3 that change MH to a lower level and ignoring a FC conversion. There is a possibility that even within the city itself, major impact roads (Like S Las Vegas Blvd / AKA "The Strip" should be locally locked even higher than the FC would imply.

Well, we've always been able to lock "special requirement" segments higher than FC. I've got a couple that "might look weird" to a newer editor that are set up to deal with particular routing issues near those segments (like how we deal with private residential areas that have more than one way in/out but only allow guest access through particular entrances and resident-only access for all the others, for example) - you can bet they're locked to higher than the FC says for that type of road. It just makes good sense.

FW & ramps 5
MH 4 URBAN / 3 rural
mH 3 URBAN / 2 rural
ps 2
st 1
At grade connectors locked at highest lock on connecting segment

I thought we already did that on the AGCs..? I can certainly get behind those lock suggestions. We might want to post in the Nevada section to get input from other NV editors; if there's a consensus then it can be added to the NV Wiki page to more formalize it.

Perhaps the real issue here is that we need an automatic alert in Waze that identifies any editor based on rank that is deleting more than one ps, mH and MH. Realistically, when is there any need to delete more than one or two roads designated as ps or higher?

I agree that would be a nice feature if there was a way to do so - sending a notification to any SMs for the state in question and the RC for the region would be good stuff and could potentially head off a bigger situation. But again, that would require getting the Waze devs onboard with there being a need for it....

JJohnston84 wrote:[...] Roll-backs, the right solution to vandalism
I know some of you are not software developers, so the solution to this may not be obvious. But, for those of you who are developers, you should know it is complete insanity that Waze isn't exposing complete revision history to the relevant parties. Rolling back should be in the toolset. Transactions should be recorded.

It'd be utter insanity if I could walk into work and delete all my company's source code. And I can't. I could try, but it would be trivial for any other developer to simply roll back my last changeset and undo all the damage. Waze should be no different. I know there is some nuance in branching/merging data, but this is not an insurmountable obstacle. There is a ton of precedent for dealing with this in the realm of source control, and I don't know why Waze's toolset isn't following suit.

[...] We need help from the Waze devs
Nothing we editors can do actually solves the risk of vandalism. One could easily, with a brand new account, do insane amounts of damage to the Waze map in the period of about a week. I won't detail how in a public forum, but the point is that none of the volunteer editors have the toolset to deal with such vandalism right now. This is a system and infrastructure failure and the only ones that can really fix it are the Waze developers. I'm hoping such a fix is already in the works.

I also wanted to include the above to add my voice to that. I'm absolutely flabbergasted that Waze devs didn't think of this sort of thing from the get-go. Given the nature of the completely public access to editing a map that gets used for navigational people by drivers all over the world, it should have occurred to them that things like this could happen and that they should have built in a method by which bad edits can be undone. I sincerely hope that's something on their near-term to-do list.
SuperDave1426
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:27 pm
Location: Nevada, USA
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 271 times

Re: Revisiting Lock Level Standards - Regional

Postby SuperDave1426 » Sat Jan 10, 2015 5:00 pm

ply8808 wrote:After seeing firsthand the destruction in this recent issue I feel that a minimum of lock 3 on PS/mH is justifiable, with MH at 4 and Freeway/Ramp at 5.

In urban areas, I agree with you. In rural areas, not so much. :)

This could be viewed as a knee jerk reaction but considering the damage and outcome there must be consideration for protecting the map even if it means extra effort on both junior and senior editors.

Sure. But in my experience, knee-jerk reactions almost always end up way overcompensating for whatever it is they're reacting to. So I'm glad that some time is being taken to discussing the matter before any changes are made.

Locking roads is not the end of editing for junior editors, it is an opportunity to get more involved with senior editors and to gain editing, research, visibility and become great editors with their commitment.

How exactly do they get experience in actual editing if most of the roads are locked above their rank and the ones that aren't don't need editing? You can talk about something until you're blue in the face, but for a LOT of people, actually doing it and applying what is being taught is the way they learn to do it. "Involvement" also means doing editing, not just discussing it. :)
SuperDave1426
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:27 pm
Location: Nevada, USA
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 271 times

Next

Return to US Southwest

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users