This is the place to discuss issues that are relevant for locations in the US. For any other discussions, please use the main forums.
Post by TruckOttr
One can always ask for a section be unlocked if it is above their pay grade. I know that people like to have control over their area. I do too.

Unfortunately with the way that Waze levels are currently set up, if we set it at L3, anyone who has edited 10K times can change your MH if they happen to have driven by, even if they are not from that area. Not a good thing, especially in remote areas where there are not that many Wazers and editors. The bad edit may not be found for months on end. Meanwhile, other Wazers who don't edit will be getting frustrated with bad routes and drop the app.

That's also why I propose reserving L2 and L4 for "special cases". If you are working on a particular area, you can use those levels while you are working on it.

By upping the levels for Freeways and MH, there will also be more of an emphasis to fix and maintain them. Right now, they are catch-as-catch can across the US. Drive across the US and Freeways and MH are all over the place in terms of consistency and correctness. Considering that most Wazers use Freeways and MH more than a primary or residential street, fixing these I think should be a higher priority than local roads. They also need to be coordinated for consistency. This is even more important in remote areas since most Wazers are simply passing through.

Editors currently tend to put more emphasis on adding that little Starbucks drive-thru parking lot road vs. fixing the names of the local Interstate exits. Which fix would have more impact? And which is more important to verify for accuracy and consistency?
TruckOttr
Posts: 314
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 82 times
https://sign.wme-tools.com/images/signa ... d-0200.pnghttps://sign.wme-tools.com/images/signa ... ones-4.png
Hayward, CA, Reno/Sparks, NV, Elko/Spring Creek, NV and apparently the N. NV section of Portola Valley, CA. :-)

Post by TruckOttr
dctdye wrote: 2. I understand the need for higher level locks but it seems that is counter-productive to your wish for people to upgrade the major roads and ramp names, etc. If roads are locked above even the AM's rank, who is going to come by and work on all that? Sure, I can request every place I need to upgrade stuff to be unlocked but at a certain point that just causes a whole lot of lost time for me and CM's who have to come by and fix things.
MH are meant to be limited access roads that have very few junctions. One of the current problems is that editors make changes to MHs that need to be fixed, over and over. In reality, they don't change very often. Major construction zones can be handled one off as special circumstances.

Another problem that I see is that the use of MH and mH is inconsistent across the US. More than a few MHs are not really MH if you look at the Road Type classification criteria.

It will be painful at first to fix the locked MHs because right now it's all over the place, but in the long term, it will save a lot more effort and lead to a more consistent Waze experience for Wazers.

My scheme is modeled after other open source and crowdsource permission schemes. "Free-for-all" doesn't scale in the long term. Unfortunately, eventually you will need to start "rolling up the drawbridges" otherwise the more experienced people will spend almost all of their time undoing problems and chasing down out of control editors, something that I highly suspect is happening right now.

In other similar type of things, you identify the core things that are used by the majority of your users and will cause the greatest grief if broken. You fix those and restrict access to a group of core people.

MHs and freeways are something that "Wazers not from your area" are most likely to encounter the most. It makes most sense for these to be coordinated to have a similar look and feel and for proper checks and balances in place.
TruckOttr
Posts: 314
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 82 times
https://sign.wme-tools.com/images/signa ... d-0200.pnghttps://sign.wme-tools.com/images/signa ... ones-4.png
Hayward, CA, Reno/Sparks, NV, Elko/Spring Creek, NV and apparently the N. NV section of Portola Valley, CA. :-)

Post by TruckOttr
daknife wrote:
As a contrary view, here in Utah we just completed a major rebuild of a section I-15 with the exact same degree of openings and closures, as the lone CM in Utah I too thought putting the lock at a lower level was the better Idea. It wasn't, any time anything was left unlocked (granted this was before selective lock levels) I soon ended up with a broken mess to fix anytime a change was made. So I locked everything back down and dedicated time each day to checking for official construction updates and then making the changes. I was able to keep things mostly accurate for the remainder of the project even through last summer's 7 weeks without a map update.

Now, even though I live several hundred miles away, due to lack of local editing activity, I am trying to manage the US-89 rebuild and reroute issue caused by a major landslide taking out that key interstate travel route.

I bring this up as an example of how with a friendly request here in the forums a CM from across the country can manage a project if there isn't a local one available, especially if the state DOT runs a quality site with good up to date information. In this case except for the actual point of broken road, where I disconnected the road segments, I have not imposed any locks, but I'm also not seeing any local editing activity.
So it doesn't take a local CM to manage a major construction project, just one willing to take the time and monitor the situation regardless of where he or she actually resides.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2
This is my point exactly. Right now we have CMs chasing everybody all over the entire country for everything from a major highway to even cul-de-sacs in residential areas. Take a look at the UR board and who responds to what. It's all over the place with no rhyme or reason. Most of the requests are fixes to things that were originally fixed and got screwed up. This doesn't scale, folks. We're chasing our tails.

Right now in Utah, daknife is acting like a dedicated AM for many parts of Utah. By splitting the responsibilities up such that non-freeways are the responsibility of the AM and CMs being primarily responsible for mentoring AMs and coordinating for consistency across the country, we will get a lot more efficient use of resources, development of true local knowledgebases and much less chaos

As with anything that gets more complex, you will eventually have to start delegating and managing. You can't do everything at once.

The "automatic locking based upon use and type" is going to be a mess. It's incredibly difficult to develop an algorithm like that which will work across the entire US. Rural traffic patterns are VERY different from urban which are VERY different from suburban. And an algorithm like that assumes that the underlying data is accurate. Much of the underlying data in areas that need fixing are inaccurate. Things are typed wrong. We have orphaned freeway ramps sitting in the desert and roads that switch from one type to the other every mile because editors pass through and make their own little tweaks without considering the whole road or because it's outside of their editable area.
TruckOttr
Posts: 314
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 82 times
https://sign.wme-tools.com/images/signa ... d-0200.pnghttps://sign.wme-tools.com/images/signa ... ones-4.png
Hayward, CA, Reno/Sparks, NV, Elko/Spring Creek, NV and apparently the N. NV section of Portola Valley, CA. :-)

Post by TruckOttr
vectorspace wrote:
CBenson wrote: I would again reiterate that waze is planning an automatic locking scheme based on actual road use.
And I would like to suggest this is relevant but not an exclusive issue. The above comments seem to imply we don't know this fact and we should just do nothing. I disagree with both. I do know the auto lock issue but suggest it is insufficient.

An automatic lock structure is essential for a huge road database, but the algorithms cannot understand the nuance of some issues like editors. Editor locks should consider the auto locks but be another layer of detail above auto locks.
I would also reiterate that an automated locking mechanism only works well if the underlying data is correct. The areas of most concern are areas that are lightly monitored and areas that are currently incorrect. Once the majority of the map has some semblance of accuracy, an automated locking mechanism would help in maintaining accuracy. Right now though, it will cause more problems than it solves.

Heavily traveled / monitored areas are not the primary concern. Those get fixed fairly quickly when a rogue editor passes through. It's areas where there are Wazers and few knowledgeable editors that are problematic. An automated locking mechanism won't fix that.

I also agree that the two are not mutually exclusive. An established lock level standard will only assist any automated locking scheme that Waze develops. The two can work hand in hand if done right.
TruckOttr
Posts: 314
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 82 times
https://sign.wme-tools.com/images/signa ... d-0200.pnghttps://sign.wme-tools.com/images/signa ... ones-4.png
Hayward, CA, Reno/Sparks, NV, Elko/Spring Creek, NV and apparently the N. NV section of Portola Valley, CA. :-)

Post by TruckOttr
PhantomSoul wrote: Finally, I'm not sure if I've mentioned this before, but I do think it would be remiss for automatic locking by the system to use any locks above L3 en masse. I'm sure there are local spots here and there with highly subjective configurations that can be argued until the cows come home, and maybe those parts should be L5 or even L6 if there's too many L5's in the area to prevent hyper-editing back and forth, but to say the entire Interstate system nationwide should be kept under L5 or L6 just because they're high-speed, high-traffic freeways will shut out many local AM's that just want to keep up with not only changing construction configurations, but also our own evolving guidlines for map editing.
I agree that savvy AMs should be able to edit MHs and Freeways in their area. Unfortunately, the way that levels are set up right now, AMs are mixed in with everyone else that is a L3. In my opinion, AMs should be their own level and their "AM Level" would only apply to their area. But we have to work with what we got. Opening up MHs and Freeways to all L3s is chaos waiting to happen.
TruckOttr
Posts: 314
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 82 times
https://sign.wme-tools.com/images/signa ... d-0200.pnghttps://sign.wme-tools.com/images/signa ... ones-4.png
Hayward, CA, Reno/Sparks, NV, Elko/Spring Creek, NV and apparently the N. NV section of Portola Valley, CA. :-)

Post by TruckOttr
It's been a while since I've floated this idea and I'm glad it's been generating discussion.

The primary concern voiced by many seems to center around locks L3 and above. AMs are concerned that they will be locked out of their respective area. On the flip side, the majority of rogue editors tend to be of the L1 / L2 variety. There do not appear to be as many rogue L3s and AMs. We also have self management that can act as a filter for L4s and AMs which will further limit the number of rogue editors as time goes by.

Ideally, we would be able to separate out AMs from L3s, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

As a first step, what do people think about establishing the following as minimum lock levels. Things can be locked higher, but shouldn't be set lower unless there is a good reason.

Level 1 - Streets, Parking Lot Roads, Dirt Roads, Service Roads, Private Roads, Landmarks.
Level 2 - Special cases of Level 1 types. (Construction areas, unique situations)
Level 3 - (everything else) Primary Streets, Minor highways, Gas Station Landmarks, Freeways, Major Highways, Ramps.

This would limit the amount of damage that a casual non-communicative editor can do to the map, yet still allows enough flexibility for AMs to continue to manage their areas. New L1s will still have enough to "get their feet wet" and the additional locks will hopefully drive them to the forums.

I believe that this will work fine with any Waze automated locking mechanism. I don't see any of the listed L1 types ever being set to be higher than L1 by any automated system. The only variable will be Primary Streets, but we can see what Waze rolls out. I think that the rest of the L3 list shouldn't be set to be lower than L3 in any automated scheme that Waze cooks up.
TruckOttr
Posts: 314
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 82 times
https://sign.wme-tools.com/images/signa ... d-0200.pnghttps://sign.wme-tools.com/images/signa ... ones-4.png
Hayward, CA, Reno/Sparks, NV, Elko/Spring Creek, NV and apparently the N. NV section of Portola Valley, CA. :-)

Post by TruckOttr
scruffy151 wrote:I think the auto-locks should be fairly low. For example:
level 1 - streets and lower
level 2 - minor highways and lower
level 3 - freeways (the highest auto-lock)

Higher level locks should not be imposed automatically. They should be reserved for problem areas and should require a case by case decision for their use.
I don't like the idea of having people with only 1,000 edits under their belt (L2) able to mess around mHs. I've seen more than a few newbie editors change mH to streets because the speed limit isn't 55mph and vice versa. In the long term, repeated flipping of road types, etc. is only going to confuse Wazers and create more work than necessary.
TruckOttr
Posts: 314
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 82 times
https://sign.wme-tools.com/images/signa ... d-0200.pnghttps://sign.wme-tools.com/images/signa ... ones-4.png
Hayward, CA, Reno/Sparks, NV, Elko/Spring Creek, NV and apparently the N. NV section of Portola Valley, CA. :-)

Post by TruckOttr
vectorspace wrote:This seems like a good discussion...

I don't think we know what algorithm Waze will use for auto lock, but I doubt it is by street type exclusively. I saw the beta editor version and major highways in remote locations were auto locked at level-1. I think it will have to do with usage more than anything.
And this is exactly why there shouldn't be an algorithm to lock things. Sigh.

Less travel = less monitoring.
Less monitoring = more vandalism, rogue editors going unnoticed for long periods of times.
More vandalism and rogue editors = more discouraged new and casual Wazers.
More discouraged new and casual Wazers = less Wazers.

I think most of us have seen where once you do a basic clean up of an area, suddenly you start getting Wazers coming out of the woodwork. Those of us who edit in the southwest definitely have seen this phenomenon, even in small towns.

This means that there is a steady stream of casual/new Wazers who are trying it out. If they're unhappy with it, they'll immediately uninstall it and go back to their favorite GPS client. If they are happy with it, they'll tell their friends.

There's no way that editors will be able to monitor a country as large as the United States consistently. Most of the US is going to be hit and miss. By doing a basic level clean up (primary streets, highways, gas stations) of remote areas and locking those down, it'll increase the chance that casual Wazers in less travelled areas won't become discouraged with Waze and may even decide to start editing. If good editors start appearing in an area, the area can be opened up.

As to why freeways in remote areas should not be set to level 1, when i first started editing NV there were portions of I-80 that had been disconnected by rogue editors (and sadly IGN). Nobody had seen it or fixed it in about a year. I-80 is the only E/W interstate in NV and it runs 500 miles.
TruckOttr
Posts: 314
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 82 times
https://sign.wme-tools.com/images/signa ... d-0200.pnghttps://sign.wme-tools.com/images/signa ... ones-4.png
Hayward, CA, Reno/Sparks, NV, Elko/Spring Creek, NV and apparently the N. NV section of Portola Valley, CA. :-)

Post by TruckOttr
daknife wrote:
vectorspace wrote:
orbitc wrote: Do we still need them???
I think, we have many editors that we should be OK without them.
I've never had the displeasure of running into one of their bad edits. I've heard of complaints, of course. At the Meetup 2013, Waze seemed to be supportive of them despite comments.
I've had them undo entirely redesigned Interchanges simply because what I'd recently drawn in didn't match the aerials. Another reason I like locking freeways, interchanges and complex intersections.
i've found IGN editors creating cute graffiti patterns (happy faces, geometric designs) in the desert thinking nobody would see them. After a while I just started deleting them because I found there was very little point in reporting them to Waze because they would just respond with "XXXX has been talked to." It makes me think they get paid per edit.
TruckOttr
Posts: 314
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 82 times
https://sign.wme-tools.com/images/signa ... d-0200.pnghttps://sign.wme-tools.com/images/signa ... ones-4.png
Hayward, CA, Reno/Sparks, NV, Elko/Spring Creek, NV and apparently the N. NV section of Portola Valley, CA. :-)

Post by TruckOttr
vectorspace wrote:Auto lock is probably a good idea, but how would you have it implemented? If you have a suggestion besides don't auto lock, what would it be?.
My approach would be the following:

Happy Wazers = bigger $$ being bid for Waze. For a Wazer to be happy they need routes that are accurate and reliable. The primary goal then is to provide Wazers with an accurate and reliable experience. This is very different than "create an accurate map".

Challenges
-------------
1) The quality of the underlying database cannot be trusted at this time within Waze.
2) Some parts of the database are more trustworthy than others.
3) Editors have permission levels that are independent of knowledge and quality of editors. There are approximately 100 L5s running around, ~1000 L4s and many many L3s. This is based upon monitoring the scoreboard/forum and matching when people get promoted to a higher level with their rank on the scoreboard. The vast majority of Wazers are L1/L2.
4) Estimate: ~80% of Wazers are concentrated in about ~10 metro areas which comprise perhaps ~10% of the number of road segments in the US.
5) Most metro areas are monitored, rest of the database is lightly monitored.
6) The metro areas are where the database is most reliable.
7) For Waze to properly route between these 10 islands, there has to be proper connectivity and accuracy on the connecting routes between these islands. Right now there is no certainty that the current routes are accurate. It's quite possible that many of these islands are completely disconnected from each other. We just don't know.

We have approximately 100 people of varying capability and knowledge to oversee about 90% of the road segments in the US, making sure the 10 islands are interconnected. That's a lot of coverage for not many people with varying skillsets.

So, what you end up having are road segments that vary in degree of "trustworthiness". For example, there is a higher probability of an interstate running thru NYC to be accurate than an interstate in Montana simply because there are more Wazers in NYC and more editors to watch for it. A mess up in NYC has the greater probability of being corrected before one is in Montana.

Road segments have differing levels of impact where changes have the greatest impact on the largest number of Wazers. For example, a screwed up primary street in Los Angeles is going to affect many more Wazers than a primary street in Maumelle, AR. And a screwed up Interstate running thru the middle of Nebraska is of greater impact than a state route in Chico, CA because there is a greater probability that it is one of the interconnects between these 10 islands.

And finally, you have more editors in the metro areas so the probability of someone messing up a primary street in Los Angeles is greater than in Maumelle.

Any locking algorithm should approximate the trustworthiness of a road segment and the impact of the segment. You can estimate trustworthiness several ways: Levels of the last editors to touch the segment and nearby segments of the same type. A group of segments all edited by an L5 is more reliable than a lone L5 edit in a sea of L1 edits. How long ago it was edited. The traffic level on the segment based upon how closely it matches the traffic level on that type of segment in a similar type of area. The speed on a segment based upon its type compared to similar segments in similar areas.

Impact can be estimated by the type and the level of traffic compared to other segments in the area. Level of traffic compared to the average Waze traffic levels. A reliable interstate type in a remote area will have a disproportionate amount of traffic compared to streets and primary streets in the same area.

Locking would be a balance between trustworthiness and impact.

What you end up with is a table where you can fill in the blanks. My stab at it:

High Trust / High Impact - Lock high
Med Trust / High impact - Lock high
Low Trust / High impact - Lock med

High Trust / Med impact -Lock med
Med Trust / Med impact - Lock med
Low Trust / Med impact - Lock low

High Trust / Low impact - Lock low
Med Trust / Low impact - Lock low
Low Trust / Low impact - Lock low

Lock low could be essentially no lock.

Ideally, I would recommend that Waze identify the key connector routes between the islands and that we make sure those are accurate. Waze should be able to provide that information based upon traffic levels they have recorded. The connectors will glow like beacons if they visualize it.

A fun Foursquare visualization as an example.
http://vimeo.com/62289901

Just my $.02 based upon experience.
TruckOttr
Posts: 314
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 82 times
https://sign.wme-tools.com/images/signa ... d-0200.pnghttps://sign.wme-tools.com/images/signa ... ones-4.png
Hayward, CA, Reno/Sparks, NV, Elko/Spring Creek, NV and apparently the N. NV section of Portola Valley, CA. :-)