Get a sneak peek at whats next for Permanent Hazards on our April 7th Office Hours!

Post Reply

NY Protocol for Handling UR's

Post by beachbumli247
The topic of closing UR's seems to come up every once in a while in the GHO group, and about how there is no official guidance for the exact procedure that should be followed when making initial contact, waiting to send a response, and closing out URs. A few of us have been talking about it, and decided it would be best to start a discussion to formalize the rules for UR's statewide, and get it added to the Wiki pages so that we are all on the same page. We need to come up with a minimum timeline for reminders and closures that we all agree on as editors as there seems to be some dissent about what is best at this time.

Note that this discussion is for statewide policy. It has been discussed the possibility of later adding on specific protocol for NYC due to the different nature, and sheer volume of UR's that are encountered there. That is a discussion for a later time.

Based upon discussions with other editors, and my understanding of the general guidelines for NY, I present the following draft guidelines for the Wiki pages:
Update Requests (UR) are our only direct line of communication with the end user. As such, it is important that we not only make every attempt respond to reports as they pop up in a timely fashion, but also provide them with enough time to respond since many users are what are affectionately referred to "weekend warriors".

Protocol for handling UR's in NY is to send an initial response to the user, regardless of the age of the UR. A second reminder response is to be sent a minimum of 4 days later, and the UR is to be closed out no sooner than 7 days from initial attempt at contact. If there is ongoing dialog between the editor and user, the UR may remain open longer at the editors discretion until a resolution is reached. If at any time the user stops responding for 4+ days, the editor is to send out reminder response to the editor, and the report may be closed out no less than 4 days from last contact by the editor
Please let us know if you disagree with any of the timelines I have posted in here, and any other changes/additions you would like to see in the Wiki page regarding handling of UR's

-Warren
beachbumli247
Area Manager
Area Manager
Posts: 65
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 3 times

POSTER_ID:3497890

1

Send a message

Post by Inactive user -1649923503-
So thank you guys for starting this discussion last night in the GHO. This is definitely an issue we have struggled with for a long time. My thoughts:
-long term I would like to have a unified policy for the entire state including NYC, but I do not think we are in a good place at this time to be able to stretch out URs to 2 weeks for NYC. we don't have the necessary number of active editors to handle the URs and struggle depending on your zoom to see them all. I feel at times a little overwhelmed by the sheer volume but this starts a different thread topic so I won't continue.
-it is important to remind people if you do have a response from an editor you should reset the clock on closing it, I sometimes use my own discretion based off their response if that is appropriate but I think that is the exception to the rule
-with many states having the general practice of if a UR is over a week old feel free to pick up where the other editor left off I think it would be good to include some wording to address this. Personally I am quite fine with having other editors pitch in.
-one thing I don't see mentioned that I think is important is an emphasis on the new URs some states have rules that they would like all new URs started within 36 hours. I think the more we can quickly respond to new and fresh URs the better response rate and better resolution rates we will have. As a recent discussion pointed out we should be focusing on on our efforts on improving our solved rate

Overall I think this proposal is great but I like to have a little more time to get the NYC area better controlled before such rules would go into effect. Our efforts have been notable with on average about 2k less URs each time a report has been run for the state but I think with the two map raids recently we may have stunted our progress a little.

Just my 2¥ worth
-John


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Inactive user -1649923503-
Posts: 1023
Has thanked: 404 times
Been thanked: 460 times
Send a message
-John
-------
https://j.mp/1BqcgbWhttps://s.waze.tools/c5.png
VT - State Manager
New England - Multi State Manager

Post by Inactive user -1649923503-
qwaletee wrote:So we really need three rules, nothing to do with NYC. Low density, normal density, and high density (which will naturally cover much but not all of NYC and other high-traffic areas). We'll have to define what Low/normal/high mean, and we'll have to develop a policy for each.
Ok I will take the bait for the strawman

I think more than two options will be too complicated and we can just simplify things by defining in advance these high and normal zones (county, region or current stats on UR count - but have State Managers Define) to add other criteria to define these areas i think will be unnecessary for state guidelines, but acceptable for individual users if they choose (Since UR count at a zoom could fluctuate based off closings, screen size/resolution, or just where you centered on the map). I would like to see these areas be fluid to be able to respond to shifts in the waze landscape and change our criteria.

Low/Normal Density 7 + 7 seams fine close day 15
High Density Density 4 + 4 also seams fine close day 9, with editors discretion for longer

I think clusters are important tool to look at but also currently some of the clusters we have are because of volume of traffic and gps issues on ramps and service roads which do not necessarily benefit from longer collecting. So editors discretion. I like other editors may not have the free time to visit hot spots daily, which is part an issue of needing overlapping coverage, but also not practical guidance. I think every 4 days reminders for these hot spots is a little obsessive, but additional inquiries may be warranted.

If we can get the backlog down in these high density areas we should be able to spend longer and closer examine them all. I think we all seen occasions where things may have been overlooked.

in terms of other users jumping in i have seen a variety of practices across the country on that, I think if you have exceeded the closing time (14 days low density, 8 days high density) send a friendly reminder or close if appropriate. Jumping in if you know the solution is an etiquette issue too complicated for explicit guidelines other than to be respectful in your actions.

Overall part of it is everyone has there own style. We have our own responses we use and as long as the editors meet our guidelines I really dont care how they tackle the URs as long as we are improving the map. We also see plenty of different levels of editors tackling URs which translates to different skill sets to analyze the data. Our priority to should be solve issues and not close the URs but recognizing that currently there does exist areas that the volume of URs are impacting the performance of WME.


Thank you qwaletee for summarizing some thoughts with your strawman, hopefully this helps build upon that.

and for the older pinned topic for those who may not have seen it
Inactive user -1649923503-
Posts: 1023
Has thanked: 404 times
Been thanked: 460 times
Send a message
-John
-------
https://j.mp/1BqcgbWhttps://s.waze.tools/c5.png
VT - State Manager
New England - Multi State Manager

Post by Inactive user -1649923503-
One of the discussions we had recently in the GHO was keeping open URs for data collection in an area. I'm personally not a fan of it as I feel using a [NOTE] is a far more universally accepted technique, but then you loose the GPS tracings.

Even in the NYC area we have multiple editors with slightly different opinions on how to handle URs and many overlapping AM. We have had discussions on how to handle URs which is part of what helped spur this recent forum chain.

If a visiting editor is causing problems that seams more of an either etiquette or national guidance issue. Current wiki has some loose language of how multiple editors should handle update requests. And if an editor is going to be active in an area for a while it is a good idea to reach out to local leadership.

I rather have guidelines of when another user can join in so that editors understand where there practice may result in another editor zapping their URs.

I don't think wide discretion was ever intended as the concept with my earlier comments just that if you are in a high density zone and want to wait 5-7 days posting a reminder that is fine with me but if it's been left unattended for over a week I might hop in and get the ball rolling. It is a common practice especially with the NYC and LI editors to help with each other's URs as there is too much for anyone to claim all their own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Inactive user -1649923503-
Posts: 1023
Has thanked: 404 times
Been thanked: 460 times
Send a message
-John
-------
https://j.mp/1BqcgbWhttps://s.waze.tools/c5.png
VT - State Manager
New England - Multi State Manager

Post by Inactive user -1649923503-
PhantomSoul wrote:Again, if we shorten the minimum from 7+7, it's something we have to agree upon within the community; otherwise, another editor can close your UR after like 4 days (or whatever) even though your intention was to wait to 7. I, however, continue to believe that changing our general - and let me emphasize - in general - minimum from 7 days is not necessary. So really, there are a few points we need to make sure are abundantly clear in the wiki text:
...

BTW, I always thought that UR stood for User Report. Is that wrong?
I think most of us have adopted the 7+7 for handling URs. The conversation was two fold though one there was older guidance that said 4+4, and we also wanted to think about the whole NYC issue as we still struggle with volume there to number of active editors and didnt know if a shorter standard should be in place. Basically we like to formalize what we are already doing in practice. But with your work here plus the older conversations I think we are close to finalizing wording.

And why cant it just be Map Issue to match what the driver sees in their app?
Inactive user -1649923503-
Posts: 1023
Has thanked: 404 times
Been thanked: 460 times
Send a message
-John
-------
https://j.mp/1BqcgbWhttps://s.waze.tools/c5.png
VT - State Manager
New England - Multi State Manager

Post by Inactive user -1649923503-
Ok I think we should try and reignite this conversation again, with the recent invention of the Speed Limit Update Requests (SL URs). At this time I think everyone has seen a significant uptick in the number of URs sepcificaly related to speed limits. Maryland has apparently adopted guidelines specific for these - MD SL URs Policy Since their new guidelines are significantly shorter than our recommended guidelines of 7 & 7. I feel this needs discussion and agreement first.

For discussion and I welcome feedback I propose
For Speed Limit Update Requests ONLY NY adopt a 2 & 2 approach so that we attempt to respond to SL URs as quickly as possible and close within a week. This would be a temporary policy until we feel that speed limits in the State of New York are complete/comprehensive enough or that the rate of the SL URs has decreased enough to allow for normal practice with them.

Rational
-Significant increase in URs will burden the editors, and in areas like NYC we already struggle with density issues allowing WME to load all the URs
-Likelihood of a driver remembering details a week later is low
-Weekend warrior concept would require the driver to drive the same route
-Less impact that wrong turn for short term purposes

We would still continue to follow the practice of examining each UR, verify street view, and reaching out for clarification, just be accelerating the timeline. Further it is important to educate the drivers on what is a legal speed limit sign in the process so a short blurb about advisory speed limits should be included as appropriate.

I appreciate any thoughts? And of course we could always get the state guidance for how to handle URs finalized while we are discussing this too.
Inactive user -1649923503-
Posts: 1023
Has thanked: 404 times
Been thanked: 460 times
Send a message
-John
-------
https://j.mp/1BqcgbWhttps://s.waze.tools/c5.png
VT - State Manager
New England - Multi State Manager

Post by Inactive user -1649923503-
I agree that we should try to move forward on getting a consensus and maybe leave the SLURs out of this discussion. Currently.

I am in favor with 7&7 and really at this time lets just do statewide including NYC. I don't think we need guidance about who owns the reports other than simple guidance that first editor should be given a friendly nudge if nothin been done recently.

In terms of SLURs the only thing I say is that I have seen frequently large clusters of them that I have taken at face value in the setting of either old street view. They are difficult and we need to think more about them but I have found quite regularly clusters of URs around speed limit changes that we don't have correct so it's more handling the volume that I find problematic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Inactive user -1649923503-
Posts: 1023
Has thanked: 404 times
Been thanked: 460 times
Send a message
-John
-------
https://j.mp/1BqcgbWhttps://s.waze.tools/c5.png
VT - State Manager
New England - Multi State Manager

Post by bac1022
I also agree with Johnsninja58 on moving forward and getting the consensus.

I am in favor of 7 & 7. This allows the reporter enough time to respond to the UR comment. We all know that a lot of them are more like a weekend warrior and only see the comments we post every once in a while. With this being said, We give them more time to help us in solving issues while also keeping the total number of UR's down to a minimum.
bac1022
Posts: 24
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 5 times
Send a message

Post by bac1022
My bet would be get Craig and Brent to comment or to give the go ahead on this. Then we would need to get someone like PZ or another wiki writer involved, after getting the approvals, to have them written into the NY wiki.
bac1022
Posts: 24
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 5 times
Send a message

Post by bac1022
Per request, I have created a google document for this to be reviewed. Please take a look and leave comments on what everyone thinks and what they might like to see changed or added.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tZD ... sp=sharing

This is also on my wiki user page.
bac1022
Posts: 24
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 5 times
Send a message