Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

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

Moderators: SkiDooGuy, roadtechie, GizmoGuy411

Re: Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

Postby HELGRAMITE » Tue Dec 16, 2014 7:20 pm

nad1927 wrote:As someone who has never felt welcome as a Waze Editor, I have to say that locking stuff at too high a level is a recipe for disaster. If you want a vibrant community of willing editors, then make it easy to edit. Locking stuff excessively, particularly stuff in the middle of nowhere, is idiotic.


Matthew –

As one of the AMs for Cincinnati and the SM for Southern Ohio I can assure you that everyone who makes meaningful contributions to the map is always welcome. Hopefully we can reset the environment, ratchet back the vitriol, and mainstream you into the active editor community.

Apologies in advance for the following treatise.

nad1927 wrote:Honestly, the only reason I'm still here is because I did enough edits to request the (3), and that made it a whole lot less of a hassle.


I realize that the segment lock levels and the consultative downlock/relock process are the crux of the issue for you, but hopefully we can hold that in abeyance while touching on your other points.

First of all, congratulations on the R3 !

As an active editor who is maintaining currency in the Wiki, following select Forum threads, and interacting with the local editor community my comments below should be just a restatement of what you already know.

There is a vibrant editor ecosystem … including useful WME extensions, standalone tools, continually evolving educational materials, MapRaids, and many others … all created and implemented by a dedicated, engaged, and exceptionally smart team of volunteers across the country.

We communicate through the PM system … but also through email, Google Hangouts (HO), WebEx, and other collaboration tools. I personally participate in 20+ HO groups … everything from Cincy AMs, to Great Lakes Region (GLR) SMs, to national groups discussing the Beta Apps, TTS, routing, and community-building.

Certainly the App could be improved, and Scoreboard updates could be dependable, WME could be overhauled, and external editing tools could be revolutionized … but what we have ain’t all that bad … and it works consistently on a global scale, in multiple languages, and across countless cultures.

nad1927 wrote:Anyway, sorry for the rant. I've seen some really good five (5) work tonight, although I get the feeling my work is being checked (for example, I can't even find my name on the AA Highway anymore, and it was hard work getting part of that turned on (editable) because of the cellular hole and my three mile edit radius). I've also seen some random deletions that make no sense to me.


The AM/SM/CM team does routinely examine the map for both good and bad edits, but almost always at the macro level. If we observe a patch of red-roads or other anomalies then we will home in, but even as an R5 editor I know that someone from the community is backing me up and telling me about problems with my name on them.

That can be scary when it comes from a Champ, and immensely humbling when it comes from an R1, especially if it was a recent edit. But the ecosystem helps me realize that there are often very nuanced edits required to not only make the Waze map represent the physical world, but to also operate logically and consistently.

Regarding your name not appearing on segments, that is a normal part of the flow. WME only reflects the “creator” and “last editor” to save changes to the segment.

As part of the area-wide Functional Classification update most of the major conduits were touched and either upgraded or confirmed. When that editor then saved those changes, his/her name became recorded on the segment. Simple as that. All of you hard work is still reflected in the underlying data within the segments.

As the CMs and SMs work to correct base map issues on a macro scale (e.g., correcting incorrect state assignments on literally tens-of-thousands of segments dating back to the contracted IGN editors) our “DNA” gets applied to all of those segments … and we thus become the new owners of whatever condition those segments are in.

nad1927 wrote:I really love using Waze. But why is it Google maps drafts all of a parking lot (something even I wouldn't do), but Waze's "policy" is outline only? It's not surprising that I use Google to get me out of the crazier parking lots and back on the highway---Because Waze editor's choose to ignore how the routing engine works. And to be clear, I'm talking about going on a trip, exiting somewhere complicated, then needing to get back on the freakin' road as fast as humanly possible. Waze absolutely sucks at this. Sucks. Sucks. Sucks. Because high-level editors keep deleting segments in reasonably drawn parking lots.


Any application, created by any developer, performs best within a defined “operating space” and performs suboptimally the farther one departs from the core mission. At its origins Waze is a commuter-focused application that has been scaled globally and continues to evolve to handle the complexity of the US infrastructure and user expectations.

I often transit Cincy during the evening rush, and as 71/75 become clobbered I have experienced Waze’s exceptional re-route performance on many occasions. As a commuter app Waze is unparalleled.

But by conscious decision Waze is not optimized for neighborhoods, malls, or the parking lot scenario you describe. Waze has chosen to maintain a clean UI by minimizing PLRs to only those essential to providing a top level physical depiction of the area and to minimize your car icon snapping to the closest street or highway. Waze is certainly useful, but is not intended to provide substantive guidance within parking lots.

Hopefully now that you are R3 you know that editors do not “choose to ignore how the routing engine works” … you don’t, do you?

I can personally speak for many of the Cincy-area editors … R1 through R6 … that strive to understand the complexities and nuances of the routing engine to ensure that an instruction is not only factually correct, but that it is also presented in sufficient time to be valuable for the average Wazer.

But … back to the elephant in the room …

nad1927 wrote:I've said before that this "Mother may I" approach is something I'm just not willing to put up with. And what's the deal with all these crappy level (6) edits? (Mapcat excepted, obviously)

My point is: Lock as little as necessary. Lock at your peril. Important stuff only.


I confident that when you become Area Manager for an active portion of the city you will quickly concede on this issue. I would hope that as our conversation evolves that you can find a means to that end … and hopefully become an AM as well.

Sorry for the long winded response, but hopefully we can step back from the edge and realize that we all work within the framework provided and strive to do the best we can do.

I look forward to continuing the conversation, and get you more involved in the community. If that is something you would like to explore just shoot me a PM or an email (helgramite.waze@gmail.com).

Cheers,

JP
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

Re: Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

Postby HELGRAMITE » Wed Dec 24, 2014 1:42 am

Thanks for the great feedback.

After experiencing a couple of brand new rouge editors during the LA Map Raid I still struggle with the mH=2 concept.

We had a number of senior editors literally watching powerlessly as a new editor emerged and laid a trail of red roads, non-connected segments, and terminated URs ... and then achieve his R2 bump and expand the carnage ... all while ignoring the many communication attempts (including drawing on the WME map around him).

I am not concerned with those R2's active in the regional and state Forums, but I am concerned with folks like Frank (above) who have not taken the time nor the effort to educate before making additions, changes, and deletions.

I probably complete 20-30 unlocks per week on average. That is part of the SM role and we take it as a badge of honor to keep a clean Unlock Forum. But maybe 25% of the requests come through the Forum, with the remainder through PM, Hangouts, and even email. But, although I see it as 'no big deal' I do appreciate that waiting for an unlock is an 'all stop' on your daily editing.

Is that temporary pause for a 'novice' R2 ... where a senior editor must validate the reason for the unlock, then QA the finished work and relock ... more valuable to the community writ large than the lost time for the solid, engaged R2's ?

So, the following graphic depicts MY current interpretation of the conversation.

PLEASE add your comments to this discussion with a specific focus on mH.

Thanks !

[ 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

Re: Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

Postby HELGRAMITE » Sat Jan 10, 2015 12:14 pm

GLR Managers & Editors -

Recommend the graphic below be used as the basis for further discussions with the GLR.

As evidenced by several long threads the GLR has hashed this over fairly well. I have included several other published 'standards' in the graphic so that you could compare where OUR conversation has converged.

<personal opinion>
I am concerned about community over-reaction to the purported vandalism and establishing onerous lock levels. IMHO the national standard should be enabling of daily map maintenance without being overly restrictive simply to prevent random outlying cases. If an R5 wants to delete segments there are no preventative measures other that lock everything at L6. A rogue R4/5/6 is a completely different issue than an aggressive but unenlightened R1/2/3.
</personal opinion>


But thankfully we are all in the conversation. Make your opinion heard.

While direct comment is always welcome, please also discuss this issue in the various daily comm channels we use (Hangouts, PM, email) and if not already posted, include the relevant results of the group discussions here.

This issue is on a fairly fast track. We should expect the SMs, CMs, RCs, and Champs to be converging within the week, if not within days.

Over to you ...

2015-01-17_15h03_39.png
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

Re: Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

Postby JB15TM » Wed Jan 06, 2016 3:27 am

I would prefer mH be locked 3 regardless. It's ridiculously easy to become an R2 editor - some in just a few days. I've seen many cases of R2 "reclassifying" a PS or changing a mis-locked mH to STREET because "it's not a highway". One specific case happened last Spring in Gaylord. With no active local editors, this went undetected until I drove there and compared to the FC layer.

I support the lock standard in the first post here... as a minimum standard. A particularly messy PS (etc) can always be locked higher.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
JB - Michigan State Manager
Mid-Michigan Resident, NJ / NYC Native
[ img ]
[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
JB15TM
Master Raider
Master Raider
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:05 pm
Location: Shiawassee County, MI
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 80 times

Re: Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

Postby jdeyoung » Wed Nov 26, 2014 2:07 pm

That progression also seems to make sense. Given the FC "importance" of mH, and level 2 being relatively easy to come by, I have seen too many L2 editors reverting FC classifications (in urban areas) because they don't think mH is appropriate. Since we don't have a way to really ensure that properly set FC designations can remain set unless we lock them, this would seem to be what we're left with.
[ img ]
AM Chicago, NW Indiana, SW Lower MI
jdeyoung
 
Posts: 474
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:04 pm
Location: Greater Chicago Metro area, NW Indiana, SW Lower MI, USA
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 211 times

Re: Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

Postby jdeyoung » Thu Dec 04, 2014 8:11 pm

davielde wrote:...

Finally, my only concern with mH at 2 would be "highway" in the name. Although FC has caught on, we still see occasional downgrades of the "highway" road types where locked at 1 and 2. If we could lobby Waze to change the label on the North American server for the English I18n translation, that would go a long way toward alleviating that concern.


This is my biggest concern. Matching FCs from our various state sources to the corresponding edits in waze is a time-consuming and sometimes tedious effort. Without any other tools at our disposal, locking levels is the only way to protect that work. The current use of mH/MH/Freeway can be easily misunderstood since everyone "knows" what all of these are. If FC was used, people would at least have to figure out what that meant before changing a street's type ;) If waze provided for alternatives other than the formal mentoring way of gaining access to higher-valued editing permissions, then points would never be an issue. At least in urban areas and on highways, the tone of many URs are of the flavor that shows incredible frustration if routing/instructions are not as good or better than commercial GPS equivalents. In order for that to be true, classifications are extremely critical to correct routing behavior. I had the experience recently on vacation in an unfamiliar area where I was reluctant to deviate from the waze-provided route, but had healthy suspicions I was not being correctly routed in the most efficient way.
Short answer is - we can use all the help we can get to better the quality of waze everywhere without having those efforts be so easily undone - without making this somehow seem unwelcoming to the newbie.
Wouldn't it be nice if road classifications could be locked independent of other editing permissions?
[ img ]
AM Chicago, NW Indiana, SW Lower MI
jdeyoung
 
Posts: 474
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:04 pm
Location: Greater Chicago Metro area, NW Indiana, SW Lower MI, USA
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 211 times

Re: Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

Postby jdeyoung » Tue Dec 16, 2014 2:41 pm

nad1927 wrote:...

And what's the deal with all these crappy level (6) edits? (Mapcat excepted, obviously)
...

Matthew


We were all at lower levels once. But our ranking follows those "learning" edits ;) I've had those pointed out to me on more than one occasion :) If the edits are recent, that's another story.
Editors at any level should be able to acknowledge - and certainly fix if not already done - their earlier mistakes. I have ... ;)
[ img ]
AM Chicago, NW Indiana, SW Lower MI
jdeyoung
 
Posts: 474
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:04 pm
Location: Greater Chicago Metro area, NW Indiana, SW Lower MI, USA
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 211 times

Re: Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

Postby jdeyoung » Mon Jan 05, 2015 6:44 pm

I don't think locking is all about paranoia - tho rogue editors can certainly do a lot of damage intentionally or unintentionally before being stopped. To newer editors, they come to editing the map without a great deal of understanding of the consequences of their actions or the volunteer community actually trying to maintain the maps in a quality way. That was certainly true when I started - tho a long time ago now it seems. Most new editors begin in the areas close to home and they feel like they know "best" - and especially with respect to FC - this is the biggest source of confusion. Waze behavior itself has made us very aware of the implications of FC with respect to routing. With no tools in place to detect this, downgrading FC (the most usual case) doesn't usually come to light via MPs anywhere near as quickly as say disabling a turn on a major street, but really is nearly as disastrous in the long run.
Waze currently informs users of the edit radius and no one has ever indicated that this seems forbidding, so being upfront about what higher-level locking means shouldn't be perceived that way either, right? I would assume most wazers become curious about how to expand their edit radius and rank, but they should also be curious as to how/why roads are at the classification they are and why as well.
The best way to have the "unlock" process be less forbidding would be to have something more integrated with standard waze functionality so that users won't feel so "mother-may-I-ish" waiting for faceless/nameless somebody to say OK. Newer users have no idea how helpful the more senior editors are and want to be - the request just kind of goes "out there". That's the interaction that would seem more forbidding if I were starting over.
[ img ]
AM Chicago, NW Indiana, SW Lower MI
jdeyoung
 
Posts: 474
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:04 pm
Location: Greater Chicago Metro area, NW Indiana, SW Lower MI, USA
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 211 times

Re: Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

Postby jdeyoung » Fri Jan 09, 2015 2:36 pm

davielde wrote:I would not consider parks critical, but anything critical should be 3+. A "trusted" user can edit the details in the app without approval when the lock is too low. For example, I caught Boise State University today, which had been renamed and recategorized as a fast food burger joint. Imagine that happening to a hospital or airport.

I think the definition of "critical" is part of the issue. If the issue is the protection of large area places - airports, university campuses, parks, etc - then these should be locked to a higher level. In the case of non-airports, "critical" really means "very publicly visible" - and too easy for a user reporting a "new" place to actually update the existing area place. Perhaps the clarification then is that "critical" should be 4 - hospital, police, fire and perhaps airports - and 3 for large(r) place areas like campuses and parks.
[ img ]
AM Chicago, NW Indiana, SW Lower MI
jdeyoung
 
Posts: 474
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:04 pm
Location: Greater Chicago Metro area, NW Indiana, SW Lower MI, USA
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 211 times

Re: Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

Postby KB_Steveo » Sun Jan 03, 2016 6:49 pm

I was actually looking at the Ohio lock standards, and liked the idea of setting one-way roads at a higher lock level than 2 way roads.

The only thing I would change about the current chart is that I would break up mH into urban and rural, with the urban lock level at 3 and the rural lock level at 2.
https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/User:Falco_s ... Road_Locks

It's also hard to put a lock level on Ferries, considering how the functionality of this road type keeps changing on us, and its usage nationally keeps changing with the functionality.
[ img ][ img ][ img ]
WI State Manager
NE Wisconsin Area Manager (Green Bay / Appleton / Sturgeon Bay)
Wisconsin mapping resources curator
KB_Steveo
 
Posts: 318
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:26 pm
Location: Wisconsin
Has thanked: 57 times
Been thanked: 29 times

PreviousNext

Return to US Great Lakes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Umarth735