I have never used the formal UR guidelines for the PL URs. I have always used a I added it response for any that get added and close solved and already added reply for ones that are on the map and close NI but that was before the new UR options placed in the app. Thanks John (JS) for bring this up, JD

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

My Issue with the SL URs is that if there is no way to verify the report where does that leave us.
Do we now start to take the word of the reporter.
I am not sure we can do that because even if there intentions are Nobile how do we know if what they think is correct.
I think the SL UR reporting was a mistake that I don't see a fix for.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

I would like to see us rap up the thread as far as the policy for dealing with General URs seeing we are mostly in agreement and get the consensus into our wiki. As for the SL URs we can continue to express our theories seeing as it is a fairly new thing

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

So after a quick read back it seems like our community is largely in agreement with a 7 plus 7 policy.... How do we get this past the powers that be and into our state wiki....

By the way..... With the exception of the newbie editor not much has been closed in under 14 days anyway, but it still would be best that we get the wiki to match our protocol....

Thanks JD

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.