Southwest lock standard?

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

Moderators: delilush, tonestertm, ottonomy

Re: Southwest lock standard?

Postby Daknife » Sat Jun 07, 2014 5:28 am

Good points but I still say with the exception of Fw/R nothing should be default locked to above 3. I usually put ramps at 4, to allow high level AM's to adjust them as they get reconstructed a little more often than the Freeways do. And in rural areas I drop that to lvl 3. I've always been very sparse in my use of locks anyway, mostly because in the bad old days a road that I locked when I was level 3 is now locked at level 5 based on my getting promoted to that rank.

Vector has pretty much nailed the limited times I do use locks, but 4 for MH is too high. These roads are constantly under construction (every spring the barrels bloom nationwide), having new roads attached or intersections rebuilt. If someone has gone through the process to achieve AM status (L3) then I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt as to whether I trust them to edit those roads. I may get burned occasionally, but more often than not I don't. If an L3 editor makes a mistake I correct it and try to mentor them. If they insist on continuing then I start bouncing locks to 4 or higher.
[ img ]
AM in Utah; CM USA
Utah Forum: Utah Forum
Samsung Galaxy S4 running 4.4 KitKat on Sprint
Daknife
Waze Mentor
Waze Mentor
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:03 pm
Location: Riverdale, Utah
Has thanked: 455 times
Been thanked: 229 times

Re: Southwest lock standard?

Postby coontex » Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:11 pm

If they are making bad edits then revolt their editing right to send a message if they do not want to do better. I am a level 3 but do my best to do things right. If I mess up I will hope to get a pm about it so that I can learn the right way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
coontex
Map Raider
Map Raider
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 3:01 am
Location: Opelousas, La
Has thanked: 200 times
Been thanked: 272 times

Re: Southwest lock standard?

Postby Daknife » Sun Jun 08, 2014 10:33 pm

That is also an option, but revoking editing privileges is not something I can just do. I can however pm and mentor them and start locking thinks on them until they do start heeding my advice. It also is a way to limit damage until I can build sufficient case to have Jemay review the situation. I haven't had to refer someone to higher since before we had RC's.

Tapatalking via my Galaxy S4
[ img ]
AM in Utah; CM USA
Utah Forum: Utah Forum
Samsung Galaxy S4 running 4.4 KitKat on Sprint
Daknife
Waze Mentor
Waze Mentor
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:03 pm
Location: Riverdale, Utah
Has thanked: 455 times
Been thanked: 229 times

Re: Southwest lock standard?

Postby kentsmith9 » Tue Jun 17, 2014 5:21 pm

I do believe having the locks too high will be a huge disruption to the editing community. I was previously of the mind that we should have locks very high, but now I am not defaulting above the following for No. CA now that the highways are very deep inside our major cities with the FC:

F/R = 5 for major areas, 4 for remote areas
MH = 3
mH = 2
Pr = 2
St = 1

I am open to setting ramps lower in all areas if we think that is a big problem. To be honest I think construction happens so infrequently that an unlock request on a Freeway/Ramp is good to have the RM or CM know what is happening.
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)

[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5679
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: Boise ID and SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1574 times
Been thanked: 1784 times

Re: Southwest lock standard?

Postby ScottZane » Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:16 am

We have such a ridiculously large amount of long and short-duration ramp closures in Southern Cal - especially Inland Empire area - that it does tend to get frustrating when I have to constantly PM ottonomy or others for an unlock. Add in the fact that the Report --> Closure featuer has issues of its own, and it can become a real burden trying to make changes to ramps.

However, I will say that ottonomy has enlightened me in a couple of cases with ramps. Also, I've seen recent works by 3's that make me question whether a 3 should even be allowed to do such work unsupervised. I guess locking them at 4 could be a happy medium then. It isn't much better, but it is a necessary evil to set them higher.
ScottZane
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 2:01 am
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Has thanked: 22 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Southwest lock standard?

Postby vectorspace » Thu Jun 19, 2014 3:49 am

I guess I am not feeling strongly about this because my position has wavered.

Originally I favored low lock levels. Then later perhaps I was jaded by continual edits of the same area over and over again by new editors coming aboard. They seem to be attracted to "hot-spots" of editing where roadways are split, unnecessary turn lanes are entered, and turn restrictions are all reset to "allow" causing inaccurate routing for Wazers both locally and across major highways and other cross-state routes. This happens in cities and rural areas. In addition, because New Mexico is rather large and spread out, these problems can persist for a long time before they are reported or a passing editor sees them.

Editing areas over and over again four or five times has made me just lock these areas at a higher level and favor a simple tiered lock level.

I was less worried about lock levels going up for these reasons: (1) With WME Chat coming into the picture because editors could ask for immediate unlock help, which I have given around the country a number of times while watching over their shoulder. I know others do this a lot more than me. (2) With the concept of Formal Mentoring, we are seeking to increase the number of Rank-3 and Rank-5 editors that should handle most of these issues as a team.

I am OK with Kentsmith9's suggested minimum criteria as needed as long as their can be state and local differences. I think the idea here is we are trying to nudge up the protection of the map as it becomes more mature without dissuading new editors.

Let's say we did that (or something else), then perhaps we can also suggest reasons why things might be locked at a lower or higher level from this... (I have dejavu that some of this was brought up before but I am too tired to look)

Higher:
  • Areas that attract repeated bad edits.
  • Areas with vandalism (temporary)
  • Areas with difference from areal imagery, often new construction.
  • etc...

Lower:
  • Areas that have historically few bad edits.
  • Areas where construction is occurring but a lower-level editor is assigned constant surveillance. (temporary)
  • etc...
vectorspace
vectorspace
 
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:05 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Has thanked: 173 times
Been thanked: 422 times

Re: Southwest lock standard?

Postby DwarfLord » Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:23 pm

vectorspace wrote:Then later perhaps I was jaded by continual edits of the same area over and over again by new editors coming aboard. They seem to be attracted to "hot-spots" of editing where roadways are split, unnecessary turn lanes are entered, and turn restrictions are all reset to "allow"

I tell my friends that once I became a Waze editor, not just a Waze user, it was like that old saw; losing interest in eating sausage once you've seen it being made. I still use Waze as my primary navigation source. But I've seen so many cases of novice editors blithely closing primary roads, and handled so many URs from poor Wazers who got sent on a wild goose chase through the neighborhoods as a result, that it is impossible for me to trust it as much as I'd like.

It may be that the locking system simply is not up to the task we are asking it to do. Ideally it would motivate editors who are careful while improving the performance of editors who aren't, but at the end of the day locking systems are just damage control. Over the months I've used the forums I've seen repeated references to locking something at 4 so the 3's can't touch it, locking at 5 so the 4's can't touch it, and even locking at 6 so the 5's can't touch it. Those stories tell me that the locking system, while useful and necessary, is not enough.

Some time ago in an obscure thread (probably in many others) someone floated the idea of a entrance exam before a person could make even one edit. The more I think about this idea the more I like it. We know very well what kind of mistakes novice editors make, and we also know that the vast majority make those mistakes not out of malice but unguided zeal. It would not be hard to craft a test that would hit the high points. It wouldn't even have to be secret. Sure, find a cheat sheet and copy the answers! We are not trying to mint Ph.D.s, just to ensure that editors start with some minimum awareness.

If the test to begin editing took, say, 10-15 minutes, that right there might discourage the ones who add a lot of red roads and roundabouts in their first week and never come back.

Here's an example of a test I came up with in another thread. It was meant partly as a joke, but only partly:

https://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 30#p714161

We would of course need Waze management to support this concept, and I don't know how easy that would be or whether they would go for it. But I really do think it would dramatically reduce novice errors, not to mention the burden on senior editors finding and fixing those errors.
DwarfLord
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:01 pm
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains, California USA
Has thanked: 1083 times
Been thanked: 1474 times

Re: Southwest lock standard?

Postby coontex » Mon Jun 23, 2014 11:43 am

DwarfLord wrote:
vectorspace wrote:Then later perhaps I was jaded by continual edits of the same area over and over again by new editors coming aboard. They seem to be attracted to "hot-spots" of editing where roadways are split, unnecessary turn lanes are entered, and turn restrictions are all reset to "allow"

I tell my friends that once I became a Waze editor, not just a Waze user, it was like that old saw; losing interest in eating sausage once you've seen it being made. I still use Waze as my primary navigation source. But I've seen so many cases of novice editors blithely closing primary roads, and handled so many URs from poor Wazers who got sent on a wild goose chase through the neighborhoods as a result, that it is impossible for me to trust it as much as I'd like.

It may be that the locking system simply is not up to the task we are asking it to do. Ideally it would motivate editors who are careful while improving the performance of editors who aren't, but at the end of the day locking systems are just damage control. Over the months I've used the forums I've seen repeated references to locking something at 4 so the 3's can't touch it, locking at 5 so the 4's can't touch it, and even locking at 6 so the 5's can't touch it. Those stories tell me that the locking system, while useful and necessary, is not enough.

Some time ago in an obscure thread (probably in many others) someone floated the idea of a entrance exam before a person could make even one edit. The more I think about this idea the more I like it. We know very well what kind of mistakes novice editors make, and we also know that the vast majority make those mistakes not out of malice but unguided zeal. It would not be hard to craft a test that would hit the high points. It wouldn't even have to be secret. Sure, find a cheat sheet and copy the answers! We are not trying to mint Ph.D.s, just to ensure that editors start with some minimum awareness.

If the test to begin editing took, say, 10-15 minutes, that right there might discourage the ones who add a lot of red roads and roundabouts in their first week and never come back.

Here's an example of a test I came up with in another thread. It was meant partly as a joke, but only partly:

https://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 30#p714161

We would of course need Waze management to support this concept, and I don't know how easy that would be or whether they would go for it. But I really do think it would dramatically reduce novice errors, not to mention the burden on senior editors finding and fixing those errors.


I would agree with this. I wish that there was something like this when I started editing to help me learn at the beginning and not make all the mistakes I made .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
coontex
Map Raider
Map Raider
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 3:01 am
Location: Opelousas, La
Has thanked: 200 times
Been thanked: 272 times

Re: Southwest lock standard?

Postby vectorspace » Fri Jun 27, 2014 3:28 am

DwarfLoard, mdavidsonjr, and others...

I think the concept of a test is a good one, primarily as a gate that keeps out people that want to edit for the wrong reasons and likely just one or two times. The issue is likely that there is little hurtle for a Rank-1 editor new to the scene to just mess things up if they are really not caring. Why should they care? They signed up for free and can edit immediately. If things are not locked for those who don't care or have initial understanding of common community interest -- then what happens, happens.

It's interesting to me to see two Rank-3 AM editors have this opinion as it seems to validate some that have been around a bit longer. Very good observations articulately stated...

I recall being a new editor, even as a Rank-3 AM somewhat frustrated because freeways were locked at 5 and sometimes arbitrary items were locked at 5. I had to go request unlocks. I did that during the transition period where being an AM allowed you to edit anything, even Rank-5 locks. When it changed, it was painful to not be able to fix those things without an unlock request. Thank goodness for clearing fields of red arrows (before good scripts) in untouched towns -- hello Rank-5.

From talking to various Waze staff at a couple Meetups including the world and US community managers and the CEO, it is extremely clear that their interest is to allow new editors to edit and open up the ranks of local self-management to new blood. They do not favor negative or unnecessarily punitive actions. They do favor positive, proactive actions, such as Formal Mentoring informal mentoring venues like WME Chat, training and webinars, etc., to help new editors edit correctly and mature some of those editors into the self-management team. I would imagine the Waze staff have some keen strategic insight, gained from world-wide activity, as to why this is important for their goals, so I would not oppose it but rather work with the direction set forth.

My guess is that a Waze-sponsored test of some sort would be viewed as a negative approach and too high of a gate to erect to becoming an editor. It would be nice if something like this was needed to go from Rank-1 to Rank-2 -- nothing onerous, but a challenge to separate out those who care to edit from those who want to do the right thing. In that case, Rank-1 is a playground to figure that out. My guess is that it won't happen because it is negative and also a low priority.

The traffic-lock auto lock experiment/approach didn't seem to work the last time it was tried. I am not sure if it is in the beta editor as I've not looked recently.

What we have been talking about here is what is reasonable to do for locking. I set out a strawman draft idea of a linear locking structure and put it on the New Mexico page. I put that down with extreme discretion on the part of the editor as critical to this, along with some principles about where locks ought to be somewhat higher and where they ought to be somewhat lower. We don't want this to become another set of rules we can argue about or condemn an editor about. Some argue very well that it ought to be a bit lower, like Kent Smith's recent post. That seems reasonable to me too.

The whole point of this is to do exactly what DwarfLord eloquently described... avoid people dismissing Waze as an unreliable GPS app -- because people randomly mess up the map. I think Waze staff may underestimate the importance of this reliability issue as Waze matures.

My opinion is that even with locks, there is enough to edit by Rank-1 editors. There are streets. There are Places. If people are really interested in editing, they can go on a Waze drive to open up new areas -- as many of us did in the past. I wonder if my rank has biased my view on this because I now don't have to worry about what I can and cannot edit.
vectorspace
vectorspace
 
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:05 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Has thanked: 173 times
Been thanked: 422 times

Re: Southwest lock standard?

Postby DwarfLord » Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:57 am

Thanks so much vectorspace for the great information!

If Waze HQ would balk at an entrance exam, how about a voluntary exam that you always pass even if you get every answer wrong?

It sounds ridiculous at first. But the vast majority of novice editors don't mean any harm and I bet many of them would welcome some kind of interactive test. It could be made a lot of fun, like a game, if a skilled person put a lot of effort into it. What editor could turn something like that down? OK, so you get all the answers wrong, who cares, you can edit anyway. But it will be there in the back of your mind -- "I missed things on that test" -- and maybe you will try again.

Maybe a fake town map can be created with a number of things wrong, and the editor could be asked to ensure that routing from A to B will work. When they hit "go" the router calculates the route and displays it. If it isn't the correct route, the editor has to figure out what's wrong. When they leave, the fake town is reset.

This isn't negative or punitive, we're just trying to come up with tools that will let novice editors learn things without having to learn them the hard way. If they can have fun in the learning, great!
DwarfLord
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:01 pm
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains, California USA
Has thanked: 1083 times
Been thanked: 1474 times

PreviousNext

Return to US Southwest

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users