Southwest lock standard?

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

Moderators: delilush, tonestertm, ottonomy

Re: Southwest lock standard?

Postby vectorspace » Fri Jun 27, 2014 1:15 pm

DwarfLord wrote: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? ...


Wow... outstanding suggestion! I say this because another topic I think Waze staff are interested in, but perhaps frustrated in applying, is "gamification." That is, turning tasks into games, something done very well by the research group that converted protein folding calculations into games with Fold-It.

I think this is quite worthy of suggesting to Waze staff, but perhaps needs a bit more development. Right now there is a play editor mode where you can edit without actually changing the map. What you're suggesting here is perhaps another version with a bit of an automated assistant or AI that would guide the user through some tests. Even if it was just a series of tests that didn't matter if you got it right, you could gamify this activity by providing points to the user as they play or upon reaching a goal of correct answers. In this way it would be worth it to play in the perspective of the user. I wonder if Waze staff have thought about that.

I think your example about figuring out how to property route from A to B by correcting a number of errors in the map would be perfect. The route Waze would use could be dynamically redrawn and would show that the route didn't make sense. As they fix each thing, the route would change and points would be added.
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 kentsmith9 » Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:54 pm

Over the years we keep talking about setting up a fake town, but the problem is resetting it to get it back to the original condition to have someone retest. So what if we have a bunch of fake town screen shots with all items visible and we provide either answers A-D, or a question with an blank answer field.
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 DwarfLord » Sun Jun 29, 2014 3:45 pm

In mission statements it's not uncommon to see the phrase "attract and retain talented employees". Waze is strong on the "attract" part but it mustn't neglect the "retain" part. While I understand the principle of encouraging junior editors, advancing editors will lose heart if they spend too much time fixing things constantly being broken by junior editors. An advancing editor who has begun to lose heart may also become less polite with the junior editors, which of course will discourage them too. Waze ends up losing both.

So, a game-like system for practicing skills that awards real points would support both attraction and retention of good editors. Seems like a big win for Waze to me.

@kentsmith9, agreed this is not easily possible as a purely volunteer effort. The concept would involve Waze development support for an automated practice system that resets automatically. A scenario in which routing from A to B starts out broken and must be fixed without breaking routing from C to D or introducing bad routing from E to F would test a lot of skills.

The scenario could be made increasingly difficult by asking the editor to:
  • Prevent routing through a private neighborhood.
  • Get routing working to an address on road divided in reality but not split in Waze.
  • Disconnect a road that has been permanently blocked off.
  • Fix an intersection mapped too literally to the satellite image and broken as a result.
  • Fix busted turn restrictions on an at-grade connector.
  • Fix a TTS problem like "Robert E Lee Blvd".
  • Fix a roundabout so it routes properly.
  • Create a park and place the stop point so it routes properly.
  • Use a timed turn restriction.
  • Deal with a 1-month closure of a road segment.
  • Restrict a road to buses and shuttles only.
  • Deal with locked segments (trick question: you can't, you have to get help, but this is a very real situation!).

What would be more difficult is practicing compliance with local conventions. I doubt Waze HQ wants to do that in an automated practice system because, honestly, Waze would work perfectly fine in a town in which every single private parking stall has its own "Parking Lot" area place, every lane of every parking lot is mapped, and every POI is an Area Place including every Taco Bell and ATM. I suppose the Waze app wouldn't even mind that much if every single corner of every single intersection had an at-grade connector, provided it was added correctly. But all these things violate convention/style guidelines and cause the editing community terrific grief.

For convention issues like these, a multiple-choice practice test with screenshots is most likely the way to go.
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 DwarfLord » Tue Oct 14, 2014 11:22 pm

kentsmith9 wrote: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.

Based on recent experience in the South Bay (of the SF Bay Area) I would like to propose that we default to Lock Level 3 for mH in urban areas of Northern California.

I'm curious what our brethren elsewhere in the Southwest region have found...but here we have had a couple of editors reach Rank 2 quickly by creating multiple spaghetti messes of parking-lot roads as well as railroads (existing, overlapping existing, and defunct) or by extensive changing of road types based on intuition, not FC. These editors have not learned about checking connectivity or turn restrictions, or about FC, but nevertheless have confidence in their work and are unafraid of reworking intersections and road types on significant highways.

Attempts to establish two-way communication with these editors have met with little success. One was finally persuaded in chat to check PMs, but there has been no response. The other was eventually found in Live Users, presented with a message scrawled in red roads, and upon visiting the chat to report it was asked to check PMs; but this editor simply responded with "lol" (a misunderstanding, not a retort, I believe) and the PMs remain unchecked.

It has not been good.

Locking mH to 3 may not be called for in more rural areas (?) but in the urban zones of Northern California it is starting to look necessary.

Opinions?

(EDIT: Clarified editor behavior.)
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 kentsmith9 » Wed Oct 15, 2014 1:02 am

If you are having trouble reaching users that are disrupting the map with their edits, we should be able to alert Waze HQ and get them to halt their edits until they respond appropriately. I know other states have used this pretty effectively.

I know how frustrating it is for "good" editors to be stuck behind segment locks that should not otherwise be so high, so I would hate to simply force mH to be level 3 since it is so common in many urban cities now with our FC updates.

I too am interested in the So. CA feedback on this topic.
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 DwarfLord » Wed Oct 15, 2014 1:33 am

The editors in question have been reported to the SM and RC. My understanding -- I could easily be wrong here and would welcome correction! -- is that, since blocking is so heavy-handed, it needs to be reserved for editors who have clearly damaged routing and who are clearly continuing to damage routing after being sent a PM and given several days to respond.

In particular, my understanding is that inability to establish two-way communication is not, all by itself, sufficient cause for blocking.

In this situation, both editors appear to have damaged the map, with resulting URs, but damage specifically to routing has been less severe. Both editors have been PM'd and alerted via chat to the presence of a PM; one has read the PM, the other not. Neither has acknowledged the importance or content of the contact in any way. It is unclear if these editors are reforming, losing interest in Waze, or simply dormant until the next map bomb. As this behavior doesn't meet the bar necessary for a temporary block, we are taking a wait-and-see approach. They may or may not cause more damage; if they do, the damage may or may not be severe. Without two-way communication there's no way to be sure.

Given the work involved in finding and cleaning up the damage already done, and the high bar for blocking, my desire is simply to keep it from happening again. Thus the locking proposal.

If the bar for blocking should be lower, that would be a great conversation too. It's hard for me to know what's best here.

(EDIT: Another solution is better tools for AMs and above. I proposed one such tool here, granting AMs the ability to send a special "blocking PM" that blocks the recipient only until the PM is accessed. Not responded to, just accessed, and the block would clear automatically and immediately upon access. I believe this capability would go a long way towards helping in situations like this.)
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 ottonomy » Thu Oct 16, 2014 3:10 am

kentsmith9 wrote:... 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
...

DwarfLord wrote:Based on recent experience in the South Bay (of the SF Bay Area) I would like to propose that we default to Lock Level 3 for mH in urban areas of Northern California.

I'm curious what our brethren elsewhere in the Southwest region have found...

We too (SoCal) have had huge problems with editors reaching L2 in a frighteningly short period of time, without any interaction in the community, and obviously no immersion in the wiki. I have no objection at all to a wide-scale raising of important mH roads to L3 in urban areas, or wherever they serve as vital connections.

I think that it's important for us to have a level of objectivity in setting locks, so the above defaults that we are using for minimums are a fine starting point. But one size does not fit all in this regard. There are mH and even PS roads which are very important to protect, and the current promotion system for editor rank is just not compatible with leaving these at L2 and expecting the map not to be damaged.

If we look at these defaults as minimum levels per road type, it's not that hard to develop a list of criteria for raising lock levels selectively. I submit some examples...
• Large roads of Street, PS, or mH types which are tempting targets for splitting or un-splitting may be raised by one lock level.
• AGCs and other segments which have carefully tuned junction angles should be locked between 3 and 5, depending upon complexity and road/intersection value.
• Wayfinders and other non-intuitive mechanisms for producing correct navigational prompts should be locked at 4 or 5.
• Roads classed as MH which are actual major highways, but not limited access enough to qualify as Freeway, should be locked at 4 or 5.
• Any of the above items which involve individual segments, rather than whole stretches of road, may be locked at 6 if of sufficient value and not easily comprehensible to a visiting CM or uninformed L5.

But locks only half way solve the problem. I think that we as a community need to collectively voice to Waze our desperate need for a more immediate and foolproof line of communication to editors of any rank who are engaged in something damaging to the map. PMs can go unnoticed, even by those who have been in the forums before. Something such as what DwarfLord has suggested, which would temporarily suspend editing rights, until messages had at least been read, would be a fantastic improvement.

Edit: Realized I had botched a pre-post edit job, and pasted a sentence into the wrong paragraph. Hate when I do that.
Last edited by ottonomy on Fri Oct 17, 2014 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Country Manager & Global Champ - United States
Regional Coordinator - Southwest USA
Area Manager - Southern California
ottonomy
Global Champ Mentor
Global Champ Mentor
 
Posts: 794
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:31 am
Location: Los Angeles CA
Has thanked: 1607 times
Been thanked: 719 times

Re: Southwest lock standard?

Postby DwarfLord » Thu Oct 16, 2014 12:32 pm

If blocking is reserved only for editors who are both unresponsive to contacts and responsible for egregious and continuing damage specifically to routing; and

If Waze will not provide tools to require reception of community messages as a condition of continued editing; and

If it continues to be easy and automatic to reach Rank 2 regardless of the quality of one's edits and without any kind of communication or supervision;

Then we only have three choices.

1. Resign ourselves to a practice of locking the maps at higher ranks at the cost of further limiting good entry-level editors and increasing the unlock/update workload on advanced editors;

2. Resign ourselves to mopping up after uninformed editors, who may continue to make uninformed edits below the blocking threshold, at the cost of losing advanced-editors' time that would otherwise be spent mentoring, responding to URs and closure situations, or applying FC.

3. Allow the map to be damaged, say "oh well", and go fishing.

I don't like any of these choices, but since we are forced to choose, I choose #1. Although #3 has a certain charm.
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 » Fri Oct 17, 2014 2:54 am

DwarfLord wrote:If blocking is reserved only for editors who are both unresponsive to contacts and responsible for egregious and continuing damage specifically to routing; and

If Waze will not provide tools to require reception of community messages as a condition of continued editing; and

If it continues to be easy and automatic to reach Rank 2 regardless of the quality of one's edits and without any kind of communication or supervision;

Then we only have three choices.

1. Resign ourselves to a practice of locking the maps at higher ranks at the cost of further limiting good entry-level editors and increasing the unlock/update workload on advanced editors;

2. Resign ourselves to mopping up after uninformed editors, who may continue to make uninformed edits below the blocking threshold, at the cost of losing advanced-editors' time that would otherwise be spent mentoring, responding to URs and closure situations, or applying FC.

3. Allow the map to be damaged, say "oh well", and go fishing.

I don't like any of these choices, but since we are forced to choose, I choose #1. Although #3 has a certain charm.


3 does sound good but we can't do that. A one day break to fish might be ok.


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 » Sun Nov 09, 2014 2:48 am

Good comments...

I don't see a problem with increasing the lock level of tricky areas, high-value roads, etc. ... as long as there are responsive LOCAL people to unlock them for lower-rank motivated editors. We also have the option of doing a quick mentoring session to raise a Rank-1 editor to Rank-2 so they can work some of the locks that are simply intended to prevent frequent newbie errors on critical items.
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