NY Protocol for Handling UR's

Moderators: orbitc, RussPA, PhantomSoul

Re: NY Protocol for Handling UR's

Postby johnsninja58 » Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:18 am

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
-John
-------
[ img ][ img ]
VT - State Manager
New England - Multi State Manager
johnsninja58
PartnerCoordinator
PartnerCoordinator
 
Posts: 980
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:05 am
Location: New England
Has thanked: 480 times
Been thanked: 498 times

Re: NY Protocol for Handling UR's

Postby johnsninja58 » Tue May 31, 2016 3:09 am

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?
-John
-------
[ img ][ img ]
VT - State Manager
New England - Multi State Manager
johnsninja58
PartnerCoordinator
PartnerCoordinator
 
Posts: 980
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:05 am
Location: New England
Has thanked: 480 times
Been thanked: 498 times

Re: NY Protocol for Handling UR's

Postby johnsninja58 » Wed Aug 24, 2016 12:35 pm

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.
-John
-------
[ img ][ img ]
VT - State Manager
New England - Multi State Manager
johnsninja58
PartnerCoordinator
PartnerCoordinator
 
Posts: 980
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:05 am
Location: New England
Has thanked: 480 times
Been thanked: 498 times

Re: NY Protocol for Handling UR's

Postby johnsninja58 » Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:34 am

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
-John
-------
[ img ][ img ]
VT - State Manager
New England - Multi State Manager
johnsninja58
PartnerCoordinator
PartnerCoordinator
 
Posts: 980
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:05 am
Location: New England
Has thanked: 480 times
Been thanked: 498 times

Re: NY Protocol for Handling UR's

Postby KTCAOP » Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:15 pm

From my experience, the initial contact being made as quickly as possible is in my opinion one of the most important pieces. Waiting too long for a reporter to respond will be more difficult as the reporter may have forgotten exactly the reason/cause for their report in the first place. Also, they were at least motivated enough to go through and press the buttons needed to get to the report, the closer we are to that "motivational high" may also help as they would hopefully carry that motivation into giving details into their report. Having a relatively short follow up post is also important for the same reason.

Also, I personally feel that once a user reports then to help in the process of doing UR's - a UR is free game for anyone to tackle until after the reporter responds or if there was sufficient information to being taking action in the initial report. This means that just because I put in the initial request, anyone can post the follow up reminder, if the initial contact was just to gain more information. Once more information is provided, then if someone wants to take responsibility for it, they can. Of course, that is my own personal feeling, though some users such as DwarfLorddo have some nice UR responses if you wanted to "butt-in" to another report - though if I was concerned, I would probably just send the person a PM asking them if there was anything else needed to be done.

If it is felt that +4+4 is too short, then to accommodate that there may be users that do not use the app as frequently, I would recommend having a *second reminder* (1+4+4+4) be sent out then before closing the report if it is the initial request for more information. After the initial reporter responds back, again that is when a person can take responsibility for that report and then another +4 reminder or +4+4 set of reminders can be given again.
KTCAOP
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 9:08 am
Location: California, Massachusetts, USA
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 206 times

Re: NY Protocol for Handling UR's

Postby KTCAOP » Tue May 31, 2016 3:12 am

Technically UR stands for "Update Request" - Given the option in the drop down menu of the Layers Menu and the Wiki Entry. But I mean... saying user report, user request, or otherwise, we all know what each other means.
KTCAOP
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 9:08 am
Location: California, Massachusetts, USA
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 206 times

Re: NY Protocol for Handling UR's

Postby PhantomSoul » Fri Mar 11, 2016 12:50 pm

4+3=7 is too short IMO. Unless we have a mapraid or statewide issues with the volume of URs impacting the performance of WME (like in NYC), we really need to strive for at least 7+7.
[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
Waze Editing Manual | USA Road Types | USA Forum
Cricket (AT&T) iPhone XR / iOS (latest) / Waze (latest/beta)
PhantomSoul
Local Champ Mentor
Local Champ Mentor
 
Posts: 1748
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:00 am
Location: Union, NJ USA
Has thanked: 329 times
Been thanked: 548 times

Re: NY Protocol for Handling UR's

Postby PhantomSoul » Wed Mar 30, 2016 4:56 am

I still maintain that 7 days total is far too short for URs. We're all volunteers, including the reporters who make initial contact, and frankly a 7-day turnaround for communications is not unreasonable. Unless solved with a comment describing what you did to solve it, no UR should ever be closed before it is at least 14 days old.

That being said, we have observed the need to accelerate this schedule because the volumes of URs being generated in those areas are actually eroding the performance of WME. Targeted editing situations, like MapRaids, typically have to be accelerated as well, since MapRaid only lasts for a limited time, often in the order of a dozen days or so.

The point is we should not be messing with 7+7 for URs unless we have a compelling reason to do so, and can make that point across easily discernible conditions, like NYC limits, or a MapRaid, for example.
[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
Waze Editing Manual | USA Road Types | USA Forum
Cricket (AT&T) iPhone XR / iOS (latest) / Waze (latest/beta)
PhantomSoul
Local Champ Mentor
Local Champ Mentor
 
Posts: 1748
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:00 am
Location: Union, NJ USA
Has thanked: 329 times
Been thanked: 548 times

Re: NY Protocol for Handling UR's

Postby PhantomSoul » Tue May 31, 2016 12:49 am

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:

  • No UR should be closed without at least 2 requests for further information from the user, unless you can confidently figure out (not to be confused with guessing) what the user was reporting and fix it as they would be expecting. Typically this would be a call for more information ASAP from when the report is submitted, and a reminder if no response is received within 7 days.
  • There should not be any further activity, again, unless you can confidently fix it as the reporter would be expecting, on any UR in which the last comment was by any editor less than 7 days ago.
  • There is no permanent ownership of any URs by any one editor. When you respond to a UR, Waze automatically subscribes you to updates to that UR by checking the box to follow it. That means you will be notified if the reporter (or anyone) responds, giving you the balance to 7-days chance to fix the situation, or reset the clock by asking further questions. Otherwise, on the 7th day, the UR becomes fair game for any editor to respond to for advancement.

Does this make sense to everyone?

BTW, I always thought that UR stood for User Report. Is that wrong?
[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
Waze Editing Manual | USA Road Types | USA Forum
Cricket (AT&T) iPhone XR / iOS (latest) / Waze (latest/beta)
PhantomSoul
Local Champ Mentor
Local Champ Mentor
 
Posts: 1748
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:00 am
Location: Union, NJ USA
Has thanked: 329 times
Been thanked: 548 times

Re: NY Protocol for Handling UR's

Postby PhantomSoul » Fri Aug 26, 2016 12:08 am

I don't feel that SL URs are different enough from any other URs to warrant special handling. Are there so many of them that we can document how they're impacting the performance of WME? That's the reason we expedite URs in hyper-urban areas like NYC.

If the SL UR has everything you need to know, correct the map and close the UR with a fixed message. If it does not, then ask the reporter what you need to know. Then the standard 7-day turn-around for a response would apply, right?

Again, the whole point of the UR system and its comments is to attempt to solicit as much local feedback as is necessary to correct unexpected situations (what we call exceptions, in the trade), when it's practical and possible to do so, or explaining a workaround/recommendation if not. In my mind, a key component to that is to allow a fair response time to all prompts, questions, or comments. This isn't about being the first area to 0 URs, or even 0 SL URs, but rather, it's about harvesting as much local knowledge that is offered to us as we can.
[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
Waze Editing Manual | USA Road Types | USA Forum
Cricket (AT&T) iPhone XR / iOS (latest) / Waze (latest/beta)
PhantomSoul
Local Champ Mentor
Local Champ Mentor
 
Posts: 1748
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:00 am
Location: Union, NJ USA
Has thanked: 329 times
Been thanked: 548 times

PreviousNext

Return to New York

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users