Official feedback thread - v1.3 - Schedules & Conversation

[HavanaDay]

Not just AMs: when I come upon a UR that has a comment from another editor requesting info from the reporter, and I think I know the answer, I will add a comment for the benefit of the original editor. I've done that a few times recently.

I think that is all well and good. I guess what I am asking, is if you know you have the solution do you still feel it isn't your place to fix it and close the UR before the 7 day period is over because you weren't the original requester or isn't your area managed. Some nav errors are as simple as a restricted turn, that when the original UR requester responds (ie couldn't turn left from A St to B St) anybody could fix it. But, current etiquette would require me to not close the UR until after 7 days. That was why I said in my original post that if someone with almost 100% certainty (ie someone I trust) can solve it, I would have no problem with them closing a UR I made a original request.

Not that you get points for comments, but I see no downside from some newbie editor coming through an area and writing either a standard or well written comment for more info on a UR. The first comment is what gets the ball rolling. The real issue is getting someone to show enough discipline to wait the 7 days to close the UR. This is getting a little better since conversations have gone live in the production editor though.

[HavanaDay]

I am a little confused by the etiquette you are proposing to follow. Is it not better for the UR reporter to get a comment about a UR he reported from anyone requesting more info of the UR they reported. I do this when I go outside my "managed" area. I do not consider I "own" that UR, but I do think you get more helpful and relative info the quicker a request for more info is made. If I respond to a UR for more information within the first day I usually get a response with more relative info. As the days pass from the UR date you get fewer and fewer responses or responses that aren't helpful (ie, I can't remember). Now just because my name is on there do I consider I own it. No I do not. I would hope other editors (this is where we might need to better educate new editors) would leave it open for the 7 days to wait for the response. Now also, if another sees the error, knows what the error is, and can fix the error then so be it. You are not going to "hurt" my feelings if they come along and solve the problem. I have started to let some local editors know that just because my name is on the top of the list, if they can solve it, solve it, and close it.

If Area Managers are coming along and seeing 1 comment and assuming that someone else is assuming the responsibility for the issue, are they really doing their job. if the Area Manager can solve it, then solve it. I understand the abuse that can go along with this, but, can we really solve the issue of someone wanting to close out 100 UR's for the points before the actual act. If you lock down UR's (another discussion) then aren't you in somewhat way limiting problems getting solved?

I truly believe that anyone writing a standard or well crafted request for more info as soon as possible on a UR makes for the best possible scenario to get a correct answer. As a general rule, I could care less if someone else posts a request for more info on a UR in my area. As long as they abide by the guidelines of allowing 7 days before closing for a response. If they truly know what the problem is and know they can solve it, two minutes after I post a comment for more info, then so be it.

[HandofMadness]

It shows the editor's name in the email, but they have to be paying attention to see it.

[HandofMadness]

Try installing the UR Overview script. Its got all sorts of rules you can set up to hide various UR's based on their status.

[HandofMadness]

I'm sorry for my ignorance, but I already read all the wiki post, and I can't understand one thing yet. If I want to block a road only to Sundays from 5 AM to 1 PM (due to closed area for jogging), I just need to mark "Sunday" and the time? I don't need to place anything else?

Set it so only Sunday is checked.
Then set from 05:00 to 13:00.

[HandofMadness]

Will do.

Do they still get your message though? If I send a "We don't map toll booths" and then immediately hit "not identified" do they get that message or do they just get the not identified part?

I'd also like to offer my opinions for the discussion on landmarks but it seems that thread is locked. -.-

In theory they will get both. When you hit send you will notice that the text box is grayed out temporarily. Once it ungrays it should update to show the comment you sent. At that point, your comment has been sent/added to the queue. You should be safe to close.

Having said that, the delivery of comments has been iffy throughout testing, with some major problems just in the last week. The most common problem has been they have received the email notification, but not the app notification. Now that comments are available in the editor, user can at least reply via editor where during beta they had to use the app to reply.

Also from beta, several hours can pass between when you submit a comment and when the user receives it.

Just some things to keep in mind.

[foxitrot]

Now I know for sure. If I follow someone other's map problem, upon its closure the client's Inbox message lies me, that "The map problem YOU've reported has been closed". Even the message's header tells it correctly and mentions the followup. The notification email is correct as well.

It's going on like this for a few weeks long.

[foxitrot]

The only bit I'd add to some UR etiquette: if someone believes he knows the correct solution for a problem, make it and write about it in the conversation, then just wait a bit more with its closure. If none has an objection against the solution, or the reporter or other communicating editors agree with it it, the UR is free to be closed.

[foxitrot]

When batch-selecting a couple of segments that don't bear the same street name or city name (no common street and no common city), editing one of those fields deletes the contents of the other one.

This has been like this in the editor for two years. This is why, and the interface is quite clear, the No Name checkbox is selected for those fields which will be set that way if you continue.

There have been proposals to Waze to make multiple-selections more user friendly, but none have been enacted yet. Waze doesn't consider this a serious enough issue (it is not a bug) to spend time changing it at this time.

Even if I should agree with this not being a bug, I'm considering it being at least a serious misbehavior

I guessed that this behavior was intended, but wouldn't it be possible to issue an explicit warning in that case? At least once?

I could not imagine one reason for such behavior to be intended. Except for simplifying the necessary code...

[foxitrot]

They can still try to locate the issue and report it in a corresponding subforum or thread. Being a local editor or driver, even with no privileges yet, they can have the necessary knowledge, which some CM might be well missing.

In our area it proceeds this way already for ages.

If the UR communications were rewarded with some e.g. 3 points per message, they would also be well stimulated to do so.