Sat Jan 10, 2015 5:06 pm
Sat Jan 10, 2015 5:49 pm
JJohnston84 wrote:I'll just reiterate - does one really think that connecting PLRs to MHs needs to be done by someone at the level of state manager? Because that is the net effect of the proposal on the table.
Sat Jan 10, 2015 5:51 pm
Sat Jan 10, 2015 6:02 pm
Sat Jan 10, 2015 6:18 pm
JJohnston84 wrote:Why not just lock MHs at 4 only after they have been deemed "mature" and otherwise lock at 3?
To me, mature means:
- Every PLR has been connected with at least a stub and turn restrictions set.
- House numbers are completed
My feeling is a lot of these "mature" urban MHs are actually far from complete when you consider those points, at least in Los Angeles
Sat Jan 10, 2015 6:22 pm
Sat Jan 10, 2015 6:26 pm
MojaveCactusMonkey wrote:So if an editor is a rank 3 and doesn't communicate at all and got there by mass editing, and not reading the wiki and not communicating with the advanced and senior editors
Sat Jan 10, 2015 7:26 pm
DwarfLord wrote:MojaveCactusMonkey wrote:So if an editor is a rank 3 and doesn't communicate at all and got there by mass editing, and not reading the wiki and not communicating with the advanced and senior editors
Such an editor shouldn't be Rank 3 in the first place, and if there already, should be demoted. In the least confrontational way possible, of course, with a clear description of what needs to be demonstrated for (re)promotion. But demoted all the same. Rank 3 should mean something.
To me this is far preferable to putting roads out of reach of all the responsible Rank 3 editors who worked hard to reach that rank, reading the wiki, communicating, and practicing.
Roads should be locked according to the skill, comprehension, and communication level required to edit them, not the fear that an undeservedly-promoted editor will come along and wreck them. Doing otherwise punishes good editors more than it does the clunkers.
Sat Jan 10, 2015 7:51 pm
DwarfLord wrote: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.
JJohnston84 wrote: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.
JJohnston84 wrote: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.
JJohnston84 wrote: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.
JJohnston84 wrote: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.
JJohnston84 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.
SuperDave1426 wrote: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.
SuperDave1426 wrote: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.
Sat Jan 10, 2015 8:58 pm
MojaveCactusMonkey wrote:FW & ramps 5
MH 4 URBAN / 3 rural
mH 3 URBAN / 2 rural
At grade connectors locked at highest lock on connecting segment