SkiDooGuy wrote:I am a fan of the following after this thread:

Fwy-5
Ramp-5 (or Highest. MUTI always 5)
MH-3
mH-3
PS-2

[...]
With no complaints I would like to start implementing these in Michigan.

Bumping this thread and throwing my hat into the above.

I think MH and mh should be kept at 3. There are so many more MH and mh now that the NFC classification has started. On those road are tons of commercial that needs to be fixed and I believe that is where people find a a lot of errors being routed to. If people can easily & quickly fix these I believe there going to be much more willing to do so. This will help clear out a lot of the errors reported everywhere. Having to reach lvl 3 just to fix common problems is bad enough, and lvl 4 is almost unattainable to most newer editors as the map here is the US is pretty complete. Really I believe having the address editor being tied to the lock lvl of the road is not not beneficial to anyone, but that is a whole other issue.

[quote="trukkurt"]

Would be nice to use a script to get a quick view of segments which have been edited recently (using script-user-specified number of days) and that would help me keep an eye on changes and also to see whether road types may have been downgraded from FC (in the unlikely event a R2+ editor does that).

WME Color Highlights script. I'm not sure if you can see that option at your lvl though.

SkiDooGuy wrote:That was a lot of math...

As far as highways. I don't see that being something that we can really negotiate.

4 is probably the lowest that we can put them. I had them lowered to 4 in San Diego for a while. But I was on every day and the only active 4 in the area.

If an AM in MI has a need for freeways to be lowered for work, I have no issue lowering areas and leaving them as such.

Absolutely. This depends on the editors in that area too. My area has 3 active level 5s'. Wisconsin has several level 4s'. So I have lowered several areas up in Wisconsin for those area managers to do their work.

Most of our work in Illinois on Freeways is wayfinders and detour prevention.

I'm following the line of Helgramite's chart of 24 Dec. I've been working through this topic for several months, and I keep thinking, based on Ohio for example, that there should be a "rural" column just as there is in the FC. What this Rural column would do is lower the Rank for MH and mH by 1 rank, generally following the FC maps as to where is Rural versus Urban. Freeways stay at 5, although I like the idea that AMs would have editing rights.

I think a rural/urban separation could allow for large urban areas in the major metropolitan areas (usually few or no "rural" areas), as well as allowing for larger rural areas found in much of the rest of the USA, and most of GLR.

I haven't seen much discussion about Railroads being 2, versus 5 in the USA Wiki I believe, but I think at minimum it should be a 3.

I've come across gas station after gas station that has been doubled-up (2 stations in one area-place), so I had taken to setting them to Rank 2, especially because creating duplicate stations allows Wazers passing by to double-up their gas-price-setting points. Rank 3 is okay because of that special point-awarding feature.

My 2 cents.

Are larger cities more important? Is this because of the potential for more editors where there are more drivers?

Since the ultimate goal is consolidation into a standard with as few exceptions as possible, after reflecting on this a but, I think we should not make an exception for the size of a city population or local editor population. Whatever the levels end up being, simplicity is key. Worst case scenario, the last thing we need is an editor getting reamed for not applying the correct locking standard of all things. Plus, it makes it easier to incorporate said standard into a tool such as WME Toolbox, which is on the Dev team's backlog.

I like the 1/2/3/4/5 progression from the last few posts on Street up to Fwy. Simple to remember.

trukkurt wrote:I get the feeling I may have started this recent push to enforce lock level standards when I sought help in Chat from a rank 6 editor (because I saw that as the fastest way to fix and "be done with it"). I suspected that prompted that rank 6 editor to apply pressure to our Michigan "family" to "get busy and enforce the standards that have been already set". I'm now inclined to seek help only in the MI forum or via PM/HO.

This was not in response to any individual action, and in my opinion, I would actually prefer that editors request unlocks in Chat if they can snag someone's attention who has rights. I don't need someone to "thank" me in the forums. Locks should allow a level of protection but shouldn't be so burdensome that no one requests unlocks. I think that with the sometimes stringent enforcement of the US Unlock forum rules as well as the extra time it takes to draft the request, an informal approach is best for both parties because of the quicker and "live" interaction, and the forum/PM would be backup in case you cannot get someone to help at the moment.

So many subjective factors play into this proposed objective locking standard. The fact is, it is easy for a rank 5 to state "my pain points are [x]", and locks help to prevent these issues, so it ends up being me looking out for my own convenience. Unfortunately, higher locking has obvious ramifications for the larger editing community in terms of recruitment and retention. Personally, I prefer the 1/2/3/4/5 approach for the ease of remembering what road type matches what. If I were rank 1 though, unless I really, really liked editing Places, I would not be as motivated to edit with higher locks at most road types. As a rank 1, however, I personally understood freeways locked at 5, and it *was* motivating for me to think that someday, I could edit the high-impact freeway routes. So, where do we find the balance? Is there a balance? There have been a lot of higher rank editors contributing to this discussion, but we need to hear more from rank 2 or rank 3 who would be most impacted before we choose 1/2/3/4/5, 1/2/3/3/5, or something else altogether.

TerryPurdue wrote:The other angle to this discussion is a perception issue in my opinion: when you're talking about R3 editors, you are (at least a large percentage of the time) talking about Area Managers.

If we can't trust Area Managers to fully understand and appreciate the importance of MH roads in the areas they're managing, I feel like the whole belief system we're working off of is broken.

Personally, I would encourage a system that allows all Area Managers to edit all segments in their areas save for freeways and freeway ramps.

I obviously don't have the proportion, but there are a handful of the "10k edit"-era R3 editors who have caused some grief in Michigan. Not all editors apply to be AM when they reach that level.

I agree that AMs should have access to a much as possible excluding freeways within their territories. Locks don't apply to AM/non-AM, but if they did, you could bet I would jump on the AM can do anything in their territory bandwagon. Right now, we're stuck because you can have really well-educated AMs and non-AM 3s who are being penalized by the perception of the rogue or uncommunicative ones. It's not an issue of trusting or not trusting GLR's AMs, who at least are in touch with the community and have gone through GizmoGuy's "hell week"/AM review.