SkiDooGuy wrote:Also, in regards to posting unlock/update requests. We have Google Hangouts for EVERYTHING now. The forums are almost a back up. There is no reason you can't send a quick unlock request in a Hangout.

One concern/complaint I've heard is that the Hangouts (at least the Ohio and GLR ones I'm in) are reserved for AMs only. If we do set a min lock for segments at L3 and the Hangouts are AM-only, that means the very people who need the unlocks are the ones prevented from (easily) broadcasting their request to the group.

At one point I an SM and I discussed the possibility of starting up an Ohio Hangout for all editors, AM or not, thus letting the full gang reap the (amazing!) benefits of the Hangouts.

As far as I know, nothing's come of that, but I may be operating on old data.

-Terry

I just needed an opening to jumpstart an important conversation that was starting to run out of momentum. I happened to chose a numbers-based angle because I'm an engineer and I feel better when I can measure things.

Warning: the votes I tallied above should not be used as the basis for any sort of decision, no matter what formula/weighting is applied to them!

First, I had to infer some posters' opinions on lock levels when they failed to specified their preference for all the road types (some only had opinions on a subset).

Second, my hazy memory from my undergrad stats class is that any sampling with less than 30 data points should be considered utterly worthless. We have less than ten as of this posting.

-Terry

This conversation seems to have gone quiet again, so maybe we do have consensus.

Hypothetically, if you found out tomorrow that the Great Lakes Region announced the following minimum lock standard, would you have a problem with it?

• PS: 2
• mH: 3
• MH: 3
• Freeway: 5
• Freeway Ramp: 5

If you don't agree, now would be a good time to make a case for why the standard should differ from the list above.

Personally, I'm eager to get started on rolling out the appropriate lock levels in my area... whatever the final numbers come out to be.

-Terry

I'm leaning towards having the standard for mH at 3.

I, along with Helg, appreciate that unlock requests serve as a mentoring opportunity for newer editors requesting to work on minor arterials.

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.

If an editor is reliably doing good work, I want to do everything I can to remove all roadblocks to their ability to improve the map. I just need gain a bit of confidence in their abilities first, however.

I'd prefer that the region's standard prevent unknown/unproven R2s from modifying minor arterials. I firmly support making local exceptions to that standard for editors who consistently demonstrate strong potential and are actively communicating with the editing community in their area.

-Terry

Lonewolf147 wrote:Well stated Helgramite. That all falls in line with what I was thinking already. But, I would still argue to bump up Railroads a bit. There are enough news articles about people following GPS onto Railroads. I would not want someone* to change the type, inadvertently or maliciously, and cause these kinds of issues.

*Someone being the many time mentioned lower level untrained.

Believe Helg is following the USA guidance for railroads, updated on 24 Oct 2014. They clearly state L2 locks on railroads nationwide.

I boggled when I saw that, but since such changes must have already be heavily discussed/reviewed, I think we need to go with it.

I personally get a "feeling" when I have to request assistance (lowering a lock) when there is an edit I can easily make to fix an obvious issue. I want to fix it right away and "be done with it" and I get a little frustrated about having to ask for and wait for assistance.

I also see it from the "need to protect the map" standpoint so I have not complained.

I get the feeling I may have started this recent push to enforce lock level standards when I sought help in Chat from a rank 6 editor (because I saw that as the fastest way to fix and "be done with it"). I suspected that prompted that rank 6 editor to apply pressure to our Michigan "family" to "get busy and enforce the standards that have been already set". I'm now inclined to seek help only in the MI forum or via PM/HO.

Anyway, whatever (perhaps NEW) standard gets established, I will adjust and support as well as I can with my current rank. That doesn't mean I'll alert everyone to all the MH rank 2 locks in my local area though because I enjoy the freedom of being able to edit and experiment a bit (i.e., with wayfinders, BC algorithms, etc). ☺

OK ... if we lean toward votes to formulate a decision regarding a locking standard, then to help increase the sample size and because my vote might count as 2 votes (I'm R2), I'm weighing in.

I would like to see the locks (in my active, somewhat rural, areas at least) as PS2/mH2/MH2/F4/R2. I'm about the only >=R2 editor w/o is currently active in "my" county AFAIK...at least with (infrequent) UR handling. Then I could edit with minimal requests for unlocks. (Fortunately, URs in "my" county are rather infrequent.)

Would be nice to use a script to get a quick view of segments which have been edited recently (using script-user-specified number of days) and that would help me keep an eye on changes and also to see whether road types may have been downgraded from FC (in the unlikely event a R2+ editor does that).

Anyway, like I said before, I'll adjust to whatever is decided and I won't complain loudly.

I'm well aware I can take advantage of mentoring (to increase my rank more quickly to R3, I think) and I might just do that several months from now when I have more time to approach training like a student would. In the meantime, I'm content with my sporadic editing and UR puzzle-solving and asking for assistance via MI forum, hangout, or even PM as necessary.

I was hesitant to try the Michigan Hangout because I tend to shy away from "social networking" stuff in general but I'm now glad I did. (Thank you for the invite and prodding, davielde and Ski!)

However, if the HO was open to all editors, including R1, and became heavily populated, then I think the current benefits (for me anyway) of the hangout may diminish due to frequent off-topic conversations and/or frequent questions that might occur (which I couldn't easily address as R2 because the location is outside of my 2-mile driving radius).

Seems the HO would become more like Twitter (which I don't really care for).

I'm glad to see the new "private room" feature of the WME Chat. That seems like it will be nice to for impromptu mentoring from the likes of SkiDooGuy when the mood strikes to quiz an editor about an area without the "noise" of several other people in Chat. Could even have 5 or 6 lower-rank editors in the private room at the same time for a "group lesson". The "private room" Chat could also be useful for an editor seeking help with a UR that requires conversation to solve (and learn from).

In light of the new features that have evolved (and may continue to evolve) establishing a road locking standard might not negatively affect (discourage) active, caring, careful lower-rank editors as much as locks currently do.

At any rate, my vote is in!

I typed this message with my phone so my comments might seem disjointed (because I can't preview my whole message at once). I apologize if that's the case.

Thanks. I wonder if we can get the author of that WMECH script to remove the R3/AM restriction, or at least lower it to 2. I don't understand why it's locked at R3/AM.

By the way, my vote for road lock standards is now modified a little after some thought.

Ramp road types lock at 4+ if they involve complicated freeway interchanges (i.e., ramp to ramp wayfinders).

Ramp road types for Michigan Lefts or simple exit/entrance ramps lock at 2 for editors like me.

I agree with davielde about mH=2 for the reasons I already stated early in this conversation. PS=2, mH=2, MH=3 (I can live with that), F=5 (I can live with that though I think R=4 is probably fully capable of these edits or at least has common sense to ask for help/verification), R=3 (So can handle some off-on ramps at least at non-freeway end).

IMHO, "critical" means "very important to get there as soon as possible" i.e., in case of some emergency or tight time schedule (such as flights that can't wait for individual passengers).

"critical" examples ("very important to get there as soon as possible"):
===============
airports
bus stations
rail stations
hospitals
emergency medical care centers
police stations
fire stations
gas stations

"non-critical" examples (but still "important" for general public interests or easily identifiable landmarks that help with navigation):
====================
parks
public libraries
schools/universities
large Area Places in general (i.e. stadiums, arenas, amusement parks)
monuments
power plants (which include tall smoke stacks, cooling towers, etc.)
etc.

IMHO, after address info and pin location has been verified, especially for critical places, in Google Maps (and corrected in GMM, if necessary) as well as verified in Waze...

critical: lock at 3+ (to protect against rogue/careless R2 edits, for example)
non-critical but still important: lock at 2 (or, in some cases lock at 3 per individual/consensus judgement)

I think there should be an EASILY accessible/usable Google spreadsheet (similar to AlanOfTheBerg's spreadsheets?) or other checklist of Permalinks where GLR editors can add requests for R2 or R3+ locks and "be done with it" without having to wait for a higher rank editor to approve.

Maybe this task would be better accomplished via a "Great Lakes Region Places Lock Requests" forum with procedures similar to the US Unlock and Update Requests forum. However, this might become confusing for newer editors or editors who are not familiar with our "local" forums and they might post general lock/unlock requests in the forum, for example. We're a friendly, helpful group so I don't think this would be a major issue, however.

Alternatively, a Google spreadsheet/checklist might be particularly easy to access, edit, discuss, and collaborate via a "#GLR_Places_Lock-Requests" Slack channel.