Revisiting Lock Level Standards - Regional

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

Moderators: delilush, tonestertm, ottonomy

Re: Revisiting Lock Level Standards - Regional

Postby ply8808 » Sat Jan 10, 2015 9:04 pm

I certainly disagree that rural areas have less of an impact on routing, most freeways and highways traverse through rural areas at some point, and long distance routing would definitely be impacted if damage were to occur.
That brings me to my thoughts on assignment of AM areas verses choice, although it is good for editors to request known areas for their AM, at some point it would benefit the community for assignments of these rural areas as part of their original request or in addition to.
As much as I would like to see an open map for deserving editors to have a free hand, we must consider the other side of the equation and include it on our decision making.
I do believe our self-management set up is addressing the promotion issues, but there are still some who have made the rank through the old system, by finding those individuals and mentoring or at minimum, getting them up to speed, we will eventually have a full crew under the new system.
For those who may feel I speak as a rank 5 and not considerate of what it was like as a junior editor, I offer this, during my gaining of rank there was no WME chat, I never heard of HO's, and I used no scripts until late rank 4, every communication was done by PM and there were many, it was not easy but commitment and determination were keys to get unlocks, assistance and guidance. As I became familiar with different senior editors, the mentoring became one on one and progress faster, so I do remember the challenges and mistakes but with today's open chatting, HO's, slack and mentoring program, I have a hard time seeing the difficulties that are being expressed.
If an editor is consider AM qualified, that is due to their editing skills, involvement, and knowledge, they have the keys to get unlocks quickly and are not deterred by inconvenience, they have communicated and been vetted, they are on their way to future promotions and at that point they will become the go to person.
Locks are necessary, where is the happy medium? I do not have the final answer, I can only offer my thoughts and opinions just as you do and through our discussions there will be a consensus, but the decision will most definitely not please everyone.
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: 1288
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:35 am
Location: Arizona, USA
Has thanked: 2228 times
Been thanked: 1542 times

Re: Revisiting Lock Level Standards - Regional

Postby taco909 » Sat Jan 10, 2015 9:05 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.

L4 /= State Manager.
Our SM just happened to be L4 until recently, but we have a LOT of L4 and, as of now, only one SM in California.

And just as your promotion to L3 has been accelerated by mentoring and Mapraid activities, the same will hold true for your promotion to L4 if you continue doing the great job you have been doing.
They don't look only at map edits for promotion. We have L4 at 80k edits, and we have L2 at 200k edits who will likely never make L3.

But I do agree that the L4 lock on MH needs to be applied sparingly and not a general policy... much in the same way that we currently apply L3 to mH segments.
-- Rich
taco909
Map Editor - Level 4
Map Editor - Level 4
 
Posts: 2230
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2014 4:05 am
Location: Los Angeles Area
Has thanked: 716 times
Been thanked: 646 times

Re: Revisiting Lock Level Standards - Regional

Postby JJohnston84 » Sat Jan 10, 2015 10:05 pm

taco909 wrote:L4 /= State Manager.
Our SM just happened to be L4 until recently, but we have a LOT of L4 and, as of now, only one SM in California.


Absolutely, I'm aware, I was just pointing out the dichotomy between the simple activity of connecting PLRs and entering house numbers on MHs versus being a state manager - which would both only be available to editors at Level 4.
-- 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 irowiki » Thu Jan 29, 2015 6:07 pm

I had a thread on this last year or so. This ends up being a catch 22 situation every time! For example, at level 4, I can't approve places that have been submitted by users where the places are attached to level 5 roads... and there's a lot of those in a few cities I've visited because there's either too many roads at 5 that shouldn't be at 5, or not enough level 5 editors.

NM (and AZ I think? Maybe NV?) has been doing Freeway 5, MH 4, mH 3, PS 2-3. Some of it in NM hasn't caught up to the FC thing yet (some SR's being MH now, etc)

So these major roads that were deleted (MH and mH), what were they locked to? As other people have said, where's our rollback, or editing history?

I think the delete lock might have some merit, especially for PS, mH and MH (and Freeway of course). Or how about if it's ranked PS or higher, it has to go into an approval queue just like Places do? The coding is already in place.

<User> Would like to <delete US-50 from XXX to YYY> (Approve or deny?)

Of course, that's for a thread over in the editor forum (or has this been discussed before?)

Even deleting roads sticking around for a month would be helpful (as another layer in the editor) and allow level 3-6's to undelete)



This all boils down to these recent quotes I like:

AlanOfTheBerg wrote:I've read all the previous discussion. I will reiterate my opinion that except for areas of known issues, special circumstances, etc., if we have state managers at L4 whom we are supposed to be trusting with edits across the entire state, that the general standard maximum lock level should be 4. If you have a L4 that you don't trust to edit freeways, then demote them.


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.



If everything in a town that mattered was locked at level 3-5, how is a 1-2 ever going to do anything? You end up with a bunch of broken roads and frustrated editors because they can't figure it out. There's a big gulf between "Here start editing, have fun" from Waze, and then the Waze community wanting new editors to be involved.

Is there a way for RC's/LC's to keep track of every level 3, 4, 5 editor? and to track edits on a major scale? Run reports?
irowiki
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2014 3:05 pm
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: Revisiting Lock Level Standards - Regional

Postby vectorspace » Thu Jan 29, 2015 6:52 pm

Hi everyone.

Like ply8808, I have switched veiwpoints on this a bit. I have been around for a fairly long time and view using "preferred approaches" as a good practice while allowing local discretion and standards for things that are not cut and dry.

There are just too many factors in locking to make eveyrone happy and avoid damage to the map (either through vandalism or mistakes, or damage by discouraging good lower-rank editors).

Lock levels are not cut and dry simply shown by Waze's own evolution on thought, attempt to use auto locks then removing them to some extent, etc.

Like MojaveCactusMonkey's suggestion, I have always advocated

FW/Ramp 5
MH 4
mH 3
PS 2
S 1

As a simple to remember default, adjusted based upon the local situation.

If you have a good active Rank-3 Area manager, you can afford to bring much of the lock level down in that region because your AM is going to watch out for things. If you have no AM, then maybe locks should be higher. Rural areas are a mixed bag because maybe less people will make mistakes there, but if you don't have eyes on the road, then a mistake or vandalism could stay there for a long time. How do you balance that? Another consideration is the amount of effort that went into editing a thing... the higher that effort perhaps the higher the lock?

What I am advocating is that we don't try to get an exact solution that is imposed on everyone everywhere. It will not work and piss off too many people.

Set a general preferred practice and some guidelines about when you lock lower and when you lock higher. Also don't forget that temporary unlocks for a day or a week are good solutions too that allow good lower-rank editors to fix things then get them relocked.

Remember also, that it is not just roads... it is places. Places can take a lot of time and research and are clearly important to Waze that has now implemented adding them in the client!

I have not edited this in a while, but the New Mexico page here:
https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/New_Mexico#L ... .26_Places

Had my guidance for NM based on some of these thoughts.

While it may be fun to debate the details, getting something simple and sustainable is probably the best objective.
vectorspace
vectorspace
 
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:05 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Has thanked: 173 times
Been thanked: 422 times

Previous

Return to US Southwest

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users