Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

Coordinator: GizmoGuy411 & ARC: RoadTechie | SkiDooGuy | JoeRodriguez12
------------------------------------------------------------

Moderators: SkiDooGuy, roadtechie, GizmoGuy411

Re: Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

Postby GadgetJ » Fri Dec 12, 2014 4:27 am

Hello All,

I am Level 2 with 4,500 (hard-earned) edits gathered over the past 6 weeks of editing in Indiana. I have learned a lot in 6 weeks, and I have a lot more to learn. I would not trust me with MH at this point. I suppose at 10K or 15K edits I will be eating crow and wishing for access to everything. Maybe L3 should have a smaller threshold- 15K edits? I suppose there is a forum for that? :)

One editor, one vote:
S/PS: L1
mH: L2
MH: L3
F / FR: L5

-Gadget
Jeremy - GadgetJ - Work hard, WAZE harder
GadgetJ
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Has thanked: 199 times
Been thanked: 34 times

Re: Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

Postby Gazoo4U » Wed Dec 03, 2014 9:10 pm

davielde wrote:
TerryPurdue wrote:The other angle to this discussion is a perception issue in my opinion: when you're talking about R3 editors, you are (at least a large percentage of the time) talking about Area Managers.

If we can't trust Area Managers to fully understand and appreciate the importance of MH roads in the areas they're managing, I feel like the whole belief system we're working off of is broken.

Personally, I would encourage a system that allows all Area Managers to edit all segments in their areas save for freeways and freeway ramps.

...Right now, we're stuck because you can have really well-educated AMs and non-AM 3s who are being penalized by the perception of the rogue or uncommunicative ones. It's not an issue of trusting or not trusting GLR's AMs, who at least are in touch with the community and have gone through GizmoGuy's "hell week"/AM review.


You're not going to like my answer, but our higher ranked editors asked for an honest opinion.

I feel that the proposed locks are way too high because the level advancements are all way too high and moreover unrelated to actual skill. They seem to all based on the fact that people used to routinely game the system (feel free to read that as "cheated") to get higher edit counts. But because they were just after higher levels, they still sucked as editors and broke tons of crap, so the protect-the-map people did the easy "solution" pushed the both the base-locks and the required edit counts higher.

I eventually will hit L3 in the next year, but then despite the willingness to volunteer, learn, and participate, there is essentially no way to ever get higher. Because under the proposals above an L3 still means I wouldn't be able to edit Major highways nor exit/entrance ramps. Even right now after the locks occurred in SE Michigan late summer, I can no longer make the fixes for majority of the URs (which unsurprisingly happen to be on roads that people drive on which are mh, MH and freeways). I unfortunately quickly realized it was just not worth my time to request unlocks for each and every edit that *someone else* has requested when it is obviously a two click fix. Someone else with higher authority will eventually read the same UR and come up with the same solution. For that matter even after the request the AM/SM almost always could fix the problem much easier, than the effort it takes to read and agree with my request, lower the lock level, wait for me to do the edits, and restore the lock. So, I can't help but feeling like Chester for the constant unlock request. My AM and SM seem to be nice people, I don't want to "Gee Spike" them to death.

So the simple fact is that if *I* feel this way and am still around, then a whole lot of others would be have been run off quicker. So all these restrictions actually do is discourage new editors since it gives off a "we-were-here-first-so-you-must-be-worthless" vibe.

Finally, the automatic L5 for all freeways strikes me as the ultimate bureaucratish decision (hey they are faster, they need a bigger number!), 98% of their segments aren't that different than a major highway.** Actually most of the times they are significantly easier as there won't be any complicated turn-restricted intersections (Yes Michigan Lefts, I'm looking at you). Anyone given the privledge of Area Manager should already have the skill to fix whatever UR shows up on them. I would hope that all AMs should have either knowledge and skill to fix whatever problem arises or at least the trust to ask more senior people what to do.

If the AMs happen to ever break that trust, simply get rid of them. Then they are back to an oridinary L3. Being an Area Managers is a privledge not a union seniority perk.

So my proposal...

L1 -- streets and driveways
L2 -- PS and mH
L3 -- MH and ramps (with the exception of freeway-to-freeway ramps)
AM -- everything else in their area except known trouble spots (** like the remaining 2% from the freeway paragraph)
SM -- those particular trouble spots in their states

And if the Waze guys wanted to code this by AM==4, SM==5, and you eliminate edit-count based levels, so be it. That would probably be better for all of us.
Kelley Cook a.k.a. Gazoo4U
[ img ]
Gazoo4U
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:05 am
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 33 times

Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

Postby GizmoGuy411 » Sun Nov 23, 2014 12:52 am

Our immediate goal should look at the Road Lock Standards that have already been established by other states and regions and try to find a solution that is as much in line with the others as possible.

Our ultimate goal should be to persuade other states and regions to do the same, so that we can establish a national standard with as few state exceptions as possible.

Once a national standard is established, we can remove guidance from the Region and move any absolutely necessary exceptions into the individual state Wikis.
[ img ]

U.S. based Global Champ Emeritus
U.S. Local Champ
U.S. Country Manager
U.S. Great Lakes RC: IL, IN, MI, OH, WI
AM: NW OH, NE IN, SE MI
Wiki Profile
Verizon: Google Pixel XL & iPad "3"
GizmoGuy411
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
 
Posts: 1464
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:14 am
Location: NW Ohio, SE Michigan, NW Indiana tri-state area
Has thanked: 844 times
Been thanked: 542 times

Re: Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

Postby GizmoGuy411 » Sat Jan 17, 2015 6:56 pm

As many of you may know, I have recommended for some time that one way streets be locked to L2 and Primary Streets to L3, ONLY after their direction has been adequately researched. Therefore any unresearched one-way ST or PS should be at L1.

Of course any locking action should imply that the segment is correct.
[ img ]

U.S. based Global Champ Emeritus
U.S. Local Champ
U.S. Country Manager
U.S. Great Lakes RC: IL, IN, MI, OH, WI
AM: NW OH, NE IN, SE MI
Wiki Profile
Verizon: Google Pixel XL & iPad "3"
GizmoGuy411
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
 
Posts: 1464
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:14 am
Location: NW Ohio, SE Michigan, NW Indiana tri-state area
Has thanked: 844 times
Been thanked: 542 times

Re: Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

Postby GizmoGuy411 » Sat Jan 17, 2015 8:11 pm

With Helgramite's permission, I have updated his above chart:
https://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 6#p1002056
[ img ]

U.S. based Global Champ Emeritus
U.S. Local Champ
U.S. Country Manager
U.S. Great Lakes RC: IL, IN, MI, OH, WI
AM: NW OH, NE IN, SE MI
Wiki Profile
Verizon: Google Pixel XL & iPad "3"
GizmoGuy411
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
 
Posts: 1464
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:14 am
Location: NW Ohio, SE Michigan, NW Indiana tri-state area
Has thanked: 844 times
Been thanked: 542 times

Re: Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

Postby hawkeygoal » Sat Nov 29, 2014 12:49 am

As much as it is it would "cramp my style" and cause a lot more unlock requests, I can see the desire to "protect the map." I do think the increased number of unlock requests will add to the frustration level at both sides of the request.

In the Chicago metropolitan area there are a large number of roads, often running through or adjacent to residential spaces, etc. that are classed mH and sometimes even MH (although that is far less likely). If someone is starting in an urban area, level locks could seriously dissuade early editors from continuing. This is one area where I think the game and product concepts collide.

In the grand scheme of things, I think it is the mH and MH classifications that are the most confusing at early stages of editing and are probably where "protection" might need to start without dissuading beginning editors. This is principally because they're called "highways" when they're generally arterial.

I think the ranks and potential manager levels need to agree (AM's should be able to edit the stuff in their area (short of freeways and their ramps) and SM's in their states. Something along these lines:

Street/Primary Street: L1
minor Highway: L2
Major Highway: L3
Freeway: L5

This gives L1's starting enough latitude to not constantly be running into a lock in an urban area when they want to add an PLR. It also allows AM's to manage the MH in their area while still protecting freeways.

Ferry: L5
Railroad: L2
Runways: L5
MIArea: L5

Just my two-bits.
[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
State Manager: Illinois | Area Manager: Iowa | Mentor
Illinois: Wiki Forum Facebook Twitter | WME: Wiki What to Edit Glossary
My Twitter: @hawkeygoal

Improving the map, one edit at a time. What's your goal?
GO HAWKS! There's only ONE GOAL!
hawkeygoal
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 5:05 pm
Location: Darien, IL, USA
Has thanked: 107 times
Been thanked: 114 times

Re: Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

Postby hawkeygoal » Sun Nov 30, 2014 3:57 am

Something that we didn't bring up in the lock standards because we're focusing on roads, but critical area places: gas stations, fire departments, police departments, hospitals, should be locked L2. Airport places should lock to the same level as runways (personal opinion). There is a suggestion on the Places page to lock parks to L2 as well. I'm torn, although I can see the point (they're easy to muck with to get that first 1000).
[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
State Manager: Illinois | Area Manager: Iowa | Mentor
Illinois: Wiki Forum Facebook Twitter | WME: Wiki What to Edit Glossary
My Twitter: @hawkeygoal

Improving the map, one edit at a time. What's your goal?
GO HAWKS! There's only ONE GOAL!
hawkeygoal
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 5:05 pm
Location: Darien, IL, USA
Has thanked: 107 times
Been thanked: 114 times

Re: Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

Postby hawkeygoal » Sat Jan 03, 2015 7:08 pm

Helgramite wrote:[ img ]


This looks like a sound proposal.

It won't keep a new R1 who feels an S is a PS, etc., from updating the map; and someone approaching this strictly as from a gamer POV could undoubtedly find a way to grind their way to R2.

TerryPurdue wrote:After 3-4 unlock requests in the same area by newer editors who are clearly striving to do good work and fully availing themselves of the wiki, forum, etc., I'll often offer to drop all mH in that area down to L2. If things continue to go well, after 3-4 weeks I'll start considering them an unofficial AM and offer to drop the MH in their area to L2 as well.


I like this concept. In a dense metropolitan area it may be difficult to implement for any significant duration as as the previously mentioned rogue R2 could pop up from nearby and wreak havoc. So, there may be need to make sure those return to the higher lock level.

Perhaps a way of standardizing with a form to lower the lock level in an area similar to the closure form. "Sign out" specific segments or X meters around the center coordinates at a zoom level (I'd suggest just the zoom level, but the actual borders can vary by window dimension). This would follow the "unofficial AM" concept. After 60 days, the lock levels are reset or entry extended. That way we don't have anything languishing at a lower level waiting to unexpectedly bite us.
[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
State Manager: Illinois | Area Manager: Iowa | Mentor
Illinois: Wiki Forum Facebook Twitter | WME: Wiki What to Edit Glossary
My Twitter: @hawkeygoal

Improving the map, one edit at a time. What's your goal?
GO HAWKS! There's only ONE GOAL!
hawkeygoal
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 5:05 pm
Location: Darien, IL, USA
Has thanked: 107 times
Been thanked: 114 times

Re: Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

Postby hawkeygoal » Fri Jan 09, 2015 1:20 am

Was working around the area and realized that while we have Gas Stations in the list as three. We touched on, but then moved on from, other "critical" infrastructure (fire stations, police stations, hospitals, etc.), without a yea or nay.

The wiki Places page, states:
Other complex, intricate, or crucial Places such as Police Stations, Fire Departments, Airports, Parks, et cetera should also be considered for locking to prevent loss of data.

Do we want to set fire, police, hospital L2 or L3?
[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
State Manager: Illinois | Area Manager: Iowa | Mentor
Illinois: Wiki Forum Facebook Twitter | WME: Wiki What to Edit Glossary
My Twitter: @hawkeygoal

Improving the map, one edit at a time. What's your goal?
GO HAWKS! There's only ONE GOAL!
hawkeygoal
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 5:05 pm
Location: Darien, IL, USA
Has thanked: 107 times
Been thanked: 114 times

Re: Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

Postby HELGRAMITE » Sun Nov 23, 2014 11:01 pm

Using the NE/NYC published standards I have spent the last couple of weeks in comms with AMs from around the community regarding their regional, state, or local standards.

Most did not know of any that applied in their region, and some did know there was an ongoing conversation. Overall, few had any strong feelings and usually said "I like that" when presented with my chart [below]. My opinion is the same response would have come had I presented ANY reasonable alignment.

The concept included in the chart below follows the NE/NYC approach, with a concept for how regional variations could be applied. When consider regional variations I proposal that regions could increase requirements from the national standard, but not lower them. This is an important construct, as the ability to reduce below a national standard defeats the entire purpose.

There has been discussion among GLR AMs to set MH=3 to enable AMs to better manage their areas. My concept maintains MH=4 not in a "do not trust them" context, but since we could have L3 AMs across the 25K - 100K range it would give the SMs, senior AMs, and Mentors opportunities to check, validate, and uh ... mentor the more junior AMs.

The other construct is a Major Impact assessment to determine if a higher lock level is needed. NE Region has done this with MH and mH in NYC. Discussions have varied between lock level 6, 5 or just +1 from their baseline level. I included the L6 option in the chart as it should generate the most discussion.

[ img ]
HELGRAMITE
Map Editor - Level 5
Map Editor - Level 5
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 8:01 pm
Has thanked: 133 times
Been thanked: 241 times

PreviousNext

Return to US Great Lakes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mhh60