Get a sneak peek at whats next for Permanent Hazards on our April 7th Office Hours!
Post by DwarfLord
That is good to know. When I was writing the article the prevailing understanding (or perhaps just my prevailing misunderstanding) was that Waze didn't route over red roads, but I didn't actually check it. :oops:

By all means, you're more than welcome to correct the article as far as I'm concerned!

There is a section later regarding roads that distort routing. It happens to have a red road and the text implies that the red road isn't causing trouble, but if it were finished, it would. So, that's wrong too I guess. Best thing for clarity would be to photoshop the image to make the road an ordinary street or maybe PLR so it doesn't distract from the point of the section and remove the text that references the red road. You're welcome to do that too if you like, or I can do it when I have time.
DwarfLord
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
Posts: 2512
Has thanked: 1065 times
Been thanked: 1451 times
Send a message

Post by DwarfLord
There is a section on overlapping segments that comes close. I too have seen editors snap brand new segments directly on top of existing segments, but only rarely. It seems to me such a doofus move I'm not sure I want to dignify it with a mention in the article :lol:
DwarfLord
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
Posts: 2512
Has thanked: 1065 times
Been thanked: 1451 times
Send a message

Post by DwarfLord
Everybody, I've made two significant additions to the Incorrect Edits article.

First, there are now some examples of unnecessary Walking Trails.

Second, there is a brand new section on Redundant turn & segment restrictions.

As always, I would be most grateful if the editing community could review these new sections. I want to be sure this article reflects current thinking and best practice as accurately as possible. Thanks!
DwarfLord
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
Posts: 2512
Has thanked: 1065 times
Been thanked: 1451 times
Send a message

Post by DwarfLord
qwaletee wrote:I'm going to disagree with the "no need for redundant turn/segment time restrictions" edit. Either way is fine, and there can be benefits to doing both. Restricting the segment is least likely to result in a missed restriction, but is not satisfactory alone due to the "only on exit" limitation of segment restrictions. I have seen this done as a matter of fact many times.
Thanks very much for the review and for reminding me of that subtlety! I had seen that but forgotten and it is an excellent point. I'll consider how to address it -- possibly by removing the section altogether, or possibly by reworking it heavily -- and report back.
DwarfLord
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
Posts: 2512
Has thanked: 1065 times
Been thanked: 1451 times
Send a message

Post by DwarfLord
QUESTION: If the penalty for a restricted segment is only applied upon exiting -- that is, a restricted segment functions more-or-less identically to a private road -- what about closed segments? Are segments closed with the closure system identical to private roads too? Drivers check in but they don't check out?

How likely is it that this implementation of a restricted segment will change? I can't be the only person whose intuitive response was that a "restricted" segment is one you can't enter as opposed to one you can't leave...
DwarfLord
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
Posts: 2512
Has thanked: 1065 times
Been thanked: 1451 times
Send a message

Post by DwarfLord
Thanks for the terrific feedback! I hoped you would respond :)

At present there seems to be a strong perspective throughout the forums that Walking Trails in the majority of situations are not beneficial, and sometimes even inimical, to the mission of Waze to support drivers of motor vehicles and help them beat traffic. It doesn't appear that you disagree with that perspective on a technical level -- do you? If my technical understanding of the pros and cons -- as described in the Walking Trail section of Incorrect Edits -- is not accurate, I definitely want to be set straight!

This is not to take anything away from your procedural concerns, which I view as absolutely valid. We may choose to remove the Walking Trails section altogether, or to add to the Road Types article, or some combination thereof. But I would like to find agreement on the technical concerns before moving forward with the procedural concerns.
DwarfLord
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
Posts: 2512
Has thanked: 1065 times
Been thanked: 1451 times
Send a message

Post by DwarfLord
Glad to know I was on the right track. Well, it would have been easier if I weren't, because now we get to a hard question:

How do we advise editors to deal with noncompliant edits? If guidance says "please do this and please do not do that", but the map is full of counterexamples that appear to have the tacit approval of the editing community that wrote the guidance, what do we want editors to take away from that?

I can see four ways through the conundrum.

1. Change guidance to conform to the map. Remove Walking Trails from the Incorrect Edits article and add encouragement to use them in the Road Types article. Pro: editors have more things to add to the map. Con: drivers are more likely to encounter odd routing.

2. Change the map to conform to guidance. Authorize editors to enforce guidance and let time do the rest. Pro: probably a better situation for drivers and for general map quality. Con: never-ending struggle trying to persuade editors not to add more Walking Trails and trying to defuse hard feelings when those Trails are removed.

3. Keep guidance, but remove teeth.. Continue to discourage Walking Trails, but explicitly instruct editors that, once created, Walking Trails are not to be removed. Pro: editors who interpret guidance loosely (or don't read it at all) retain morale. Con: editors who take guidance seriously lose morale.

4. Remove guidance. Make the Wiki silent on Walking Trails. Editors take action based on individual perspective, however formulated. Pro: No Walking Trail can be called noncompliant. Con: No Walking Trail can be called noncompliant.

None of these sound especially appealing, but how we proceed to reformulate the Incorrect Edits article depends entirely on which path we want to take.
DwarfLord
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
Posts: 2512
Has thanked: 1065 times
Been thanked: 1451 times
Send a message

Post by DwarfLord
I have commented out the Walking Trails section and the new section on redundant time & segment restrictions so that incorrect guidance is not propagated while these are under discussion.
DwarfLord
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
Posts: 2512
Has thanked: 1065 times
Been thanked: 1451 times
Send a message

Post by DwarfLord
Well, we could make it a requirement that "real" walking trails be locked at minimum 5 and preferably 6. There are very, very few of them, so this workload wouldn't be much. This would automatically prevent the sort of editor who is directed to the Incorrect Edits article from deleting them, whether they want to or not.

Why Rank 5 minimum you ask? Because the BBQ grille below was created by a Rank 4. Are we saying that wiki guidance should encourage and protect these? Or, are we saying that only an RC should have the authority to delete them? Does that perspective apply to BBQ-grille PLRs -- should we all stop deleting those and let the RCs do it? Of course not (ummm...right?). So why do Walking Trails like these get the delicate touch?
WalkingTrailBBQ.jpg
Walking Trail BBQ
(226.66 KiB) Downloaded 991 times
As for longer-distance bike-path type Walking Trails, like the ones shown below (created by the same Rank 4), it has puzzled me for ages that these get a sort of ;) ;) treatment. We know that trails like these -- trails that closely parallel roads, serve no destinations themselves but come close to drivable destinations, and make the display more complex in a region that would otherwise be fairly simple for drivers -- are not only (a) NOT part of the mission of Waze and are therefore discouraged on principle, but also (b) possibly DELETERIOUS for drivers even when not connected to the road network. So why the ;) ;) ???

Gaaaaah, it doesn't make any sense!
WalkingTrailsParallel.jpg
Closely-parallel trails; more trails than roads in a drivable area
(208.95 KiB) Downloaded 979 times
DwarfLord
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
Posts: 2512
Has thanked: 1065 times
Been thanked: 1451 times
Send a message

Post by DwarfLord
I agree that moving the question of Walking-Trail-specific guidance to a more targeted thread is an important and necessary step. In fact I started exactly such a thread last July. There is also a more recent thread comparing Walking Trails with Pedestrian Boardwalks. Probably the former is the best place to discuss what the guidance should be.

The more general questions of how and whether to enforce guidance, and whether guidance should explicitly authorize anyone to protect the quality of the maps, are more broadly applicable. They've come up in the context of Walking Trails, but go much deeper. That's what I was hoping to get at in this thread, but the specifics and the generalities are so intertwined I'm not sure how best to proceed.
DwarfLord
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
Posts: 2512
Has thanked: 1065 times
Been thanked: 1451 times
Send a message