Revisiting Lock Level Standards - Regional

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

Moderators: delilush, ottonomy, tonestertm

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: 928
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:27 pm
Location: Nevada, USA
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 272 times

Re: Revisiting Lock Level Standards - Regional

Postby SuperDave1426 » 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.

While it doesn't happen often, it has happened. So it's not like there isn't a precedence for demoting a disruptive editor. I know of an editor (not going to mention any names) who had made it to R4 who wound up getting himself kicked back to R2. Instead of taking his lumps and doing what was needed to get reinstated, I'm pretty sure he left (haven't seen any activity from him in the editor or forums since then). Which is fine with me - someone with his attitude isn't beneficial, and isn't needed. Ok, I got a big sidetracked there, but the point I was trying to make is that it's not like there isn't a precedence for doing a demotion where needed. Try to educate first, of course, but if they're just refusing to learn, demote them. Then they'll either get the message or leave; IMHO either one is a win at that point.

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.

[ img ]
SuperDave1426
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 928
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:27 pm
Location: Nevada, USA
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 272 times

Re: Revisiting Lock Level Standards - Regional

Postby taco909 » Sat Jan 10, 2015 8:58 pm

MojaveCactusMonkey wrote: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

This is pretty much what we are already doing, with the exception that it is rare to see MH locked to 4.
The general assumption that there is enough QC on the L3 promotion that they can be trusted with MH.

Now, I don't know what the details are on the Texas situation, but just a thought....

Set a policy so that NO MH or mH may be deleted without, and in this order:
1 - Lowering its road type to Dirt/4x4 + SAVE
2 - Lowering its lock level to Automatic(1) + SAVE
and upon completion of operation #2:
3 - Immediate Email and PM notification to the local *C/*Ms (RC, LC, CM, SM, AM) including a PL and the name of the editor who performed the operations

This will prevent:
1 - Accidental deletions
2 - Angry teenager getting into a notebook

No, it won't prevent a rogue L5/6 from doing the damage... only slow them down, and yes, a script or bookmarklet could be written to automate those functions.
But it WOULD slow them down, and with the addition of #3, prevent this from being done anonymously, and with 5-10 *Ms on the distribution list, prevented from going unnoticed for days.
No, a rogue editor who doesn't give a crap and does it as a "last hurrah" can still do serious damage this way... there is simply no way to prevent this without the ability to rollback.

Yes, there will be some situations where these operations would be legitimate. Perhaps it's a test area that an editor set up, so there will be some false alarms. Perhaps the email could also include the segment's creator and created-by date so a quick look at the email will tell the *C/*M that it is not a long-standing road segment.

Much the same logic that was applied to the change in WMETB that took away the ability to simplify segments without actually selecting them... we can't eliminate the possibility of vandalism, and we don't want to be overly restrictive to the majority of editors who are simply attempting to work, but we can make it less convenient for the vandal, the same way that a security system in your car makes it a less attractive target than the one parked next to it with the windows open.
-- 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 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 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

cron