Waze forum

On the WME screen, can we make the "Solved" and "Not identified" text into links -- or add question-mark icons adjacent to each one -- that bring up definitions of each?

As a newbie I was surprised to learn that "solved" really means "solved or probably invalid", while "not identified" means "probably valid, but no clear way to solve":

https://www.waze.com/wiki/Map_Problems_ ... Map_Editor

Before I learned this I closed a number of almost certainly invalid URs as "not identified". The reporter confirmed he had probably been "overzealous" in reporting map errors and could not be more specific. I didn't realize I was simply kicking the can to some other poor editor, and one who probably doesn't know the territory as well.

There appear to be a lot of invalid URs. Multiply my ignorance by all the other ignorant newbies and that's a lot of "not identified" reports.

Of course every newbie should find and read all the documentation before their first edit, but for better or worse that is not how the world typically works. If the volume of "not identified" reports is a problem -- a problem due to beginner editors simply not understanding how Waze uses the term -- having definitions available directly from the editor should make a dramatic difference.

Thanks for listening!

You linked to the Map Problems documentation. I think you mean to link to the Update Requests page instead.

Ok, if you're talking about update requests, then the Update Requests page, specifically the Report As section seems more relevant.

Your suggestion to have more "tool-tip" like things which pop up in the editor the few 1-3 times the user selects them, is a great idea, and one which Waze has said they plan to put in place. It will probably take longer than you think it should to implement.

DwarfLord wrote:But one Waze guidance page says mark them not identified while another says that could cause more harm than good and to mark them solved.

Help!

Maybe we need WME tooltips for these terms even more than I thought...something to help arbitrate potentially contradictory guidance

It's not contradictory at all. One is for Map Problems, the other is for Update Requests. They are totally different things and as such, are to be treated differently.

DwarfLord wrote:(p.s. It's a head-scratcher for me why the guidance wants Update Requests bumped up -- oops, "not identified" -- even if they appear invalid. There appear to be a lot of invalid Update Requests. Seems like this would swamp the "not-identifed" editing crew. However I do understand why local knowledge can be so helpful in understanding automated problem reports and can see why those should typically not be bumped up.)

Update Requests, because they come from users, are handled differently. You get to add notes in conversations with the reporter, and they can reply, etc. If you get to the point where an Update Request cannot be solved, either due to lack of information from the reporter, or if the problem isn't actually a map issue (could be a routing server problem), then marking them as "not identified" sends a message to the reporter that the problem could not be solved.

Map Problems, which are always system-generated based on drive analysis, have no such user to communicate with. The "not identified" closure option basically flags the problem to be possibly reviewed by contracted map editors. History with these editors (see "ign" in the forum or wiki for more) has been long and their edits have been contentious. Basically, most areas of the more built-up parts of the world in Waze do not trust them and do not want them re-reviewing the system-generated Map Problems because of the havoc they may wreak on the map. Part of the reason for this as well, is that many Map Problems are invalid to begin with. Waze works on tweaking the code for the various map problems, but it still detects many "problems" which aren't actually problems, and we don't want someone from another country who may be editing for $, to go in and start adding segments and crap to the map which we don't want. Therefore, marking Map Problems "solved" is advisable in many instances.

DwarfLord wrote:... in the case of User Requests, "Not identified" does NOT escalate; but rather it closes out the UR with a nice note to the requestor saying "sorry we can't see how to help resolve this" and that's it. Is that right? URs do not escalate regardless of whether they are "Solved" or "Not identified"?

Correct.

i just came up against this same non-obviousness in the editor. where can suggestions like these be tracked to completion?

Thanks, actually I did mean to link to the Map Problems documentation. That's where it says "It is not advised to mark many Problems as Not Identified because this...may cause more harm than good" and "If you see that the problem isn't valid...mark it Solved."

"Solved" and "Not identified" do not convey that subtlety, or at least they didn't to me

Thanks for the alternate link! It says that in case of "lack of detail provided by the Wazer...you may not be able to identify the source of the reported problem...mark the Update Request as Not Identified."

Horribly vague user reports with unresponsive followup seem more the rule than the exception. But one Waze guidance page says mark them not identified while another says that could cause more harm than good and to mark them solved.

Help!

Maybe we need WME tooltips for these terms even more than I thought...something to help arbitrate potentially contradictory guidance

This is extremely helpful, thank you. Intuitively I did know the difference but I seem to be having a hard time with the nomenclature. If a user reports a map problem it is not a Map Problem, if the system requests an update it is not an Update Request? OK I do understand now, finally

If the Waze folks are listening I hope this conversation underlines my suggestion for them. The nuance of "Solved" and "Not identified" changes depending on what type of issue the editor is dealing with? That's definitely not something beginners are going to get right away.

Thanks again!

(p.s. It's a head-scratcher for me why the guidance wants Update Requests bumped up -- oops, "not identified" -- even if they appear invalid. There appear to be a lot of invalid Update Requests. Seems like this would swamp the "not-identifed" editing crew. However I do understand why local knowledge can be so helpful in understanding automated problem reports and can see why those should typically not be bumped up.)