Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

Coordinator: GizmoGuy411 & ARC: RoadTechie | SkiDooGuy | JoeRodriguez12
------------------------------------------------------------

Moderators: SkiDooGuy, roadtechie, GizmoGuy411

Re: Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

Postby davielde » Wed Dec 03, 2014 6:37 pm

hawkeygoal wrote:Something that we didn't bring up in the lock standards because we're focusing on roads, but critical area places: gas stations, fire departments, police departments, hospitals, should be locked L2. Airport places should lock to the same level as runways (personal opinion). There is a suggestion on the Places page to lock parks to L2 as well. I'm torn, although I can see the point (they're easy to muck with to get that first 1000).

Places can be updated from the app by "trusted users" without moderation. For this reason, perhaps 2 or even 3 for most Places would be ideal to at least trigger a PUR in WME.
[ img ]
CM: USA
SM: Michigan, Vermont
AM: Ann Arbor, MI & Thunder Bay, ON
WME Michigan
davielde
 
Posts: 1219
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:01 pm
Location: Michigan, USA
Has thanked: 461 times
Been thanked: 759 times

Re: Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

Postby davielde » Thu Dec 04, 2014 6:24 pm

Gazoo4U wrote:I eventually will hit L3 in the next year, but then despite the willingness to volunteer, learn, and participate, there is essentially no way to ever get higher.

With Formal Mentoring in the USA, that is not true. The essence of mentoring is to provide an avenue where editors can train new and show existing skills with a goal toward rank advancement or something else in mind. By stressing quality over edit count, this program allows for editors who wish to take part the chance to hit R3 without 25k edits, etc. as long as they demonstrate what the US self-management team judges to be the core skills for whatever rank the mentee is trying to achieve. It is a commitment, but it is one that moves with the mentee's and mentor's pace, and I would highly recommend it. It is also worth noting that US editors are no longer guaranteed ranks 3/4/5 at the Waze-proclaimed edit count threshold without some form of community involvement (community service?) and approval from the self-management team--just as you no longer have to exceed the threshold if you exhibit quality work during mentoring. Gazoo4U, you're involved in your local editing community and well-known in Michigan, and I would invite you and anyone else who sees the next level as insurmountably high to consider mentoring. Good work toward achieving your goals is rewarded.

Gazoo4U wrote:I unfortunately quickly realized it was just not worth my time to request unlocks for each and every edit that *someone else* has requested when it is obviously a two click fix.

Yes, we need to find that "good" balance between too much and too little.

Gazoo4U wrote:Someone else with higher authority will eventually read the same UR and come up with the same solution. [...] So the simple fact is that if *I* feel this way and am still around, then a whole lot of others would be have been run off quicker. So all these restrictions actually do is discourage new editors since it gives off a "we-were-here-first-so-you-must-be-worthless" vibe.

Yes, yes, yes! I would rather retain a number of good editors than have ten times as many "flash in the pan" editors, and those latter ones are the ones we are concerned with. At the same time, how can you keep editors from getting discouraged *without* a rank increase? Is it possible? Since it most likely would mean little to be "rewarded" with something other than a rank increase, AM territory or expansion territory, Mentoring opens up those possibilities to advance. Unfortunately, we're talking about an objective lock system, but at least now there is some subjective thought put forth toward the rank upgrades.

Gazoo4U wrote:Anyone given the privledge of Area Manager should already have the skill to fix whatever UR shows up on them. I would hope that all AMs should have either knowledge and skill to fix whatever problem arises or at least the trust to ask more senior people what to do.

I would argue that your first sentence does not have to be true, but the latter part of your second does. You don't need to know everything as an AM. There is advancement past AM, and rightly so both in scale and in scope. You *do* need to know how to ask for help if needed though. And that never stops. As a R5/SM/CM, I ask questions. Lots of them. I write forum posts. Lots of them. I spend a lot of time on Hangouts. This is all at the expense of just jumping into WME and editing. Having the ability to edit something is only a small piece.

Finally, my only concern with mH at 2 would be "highway" in the name. Although FC has caught on, we still see occasional downgrades of the "highway" road types where locked at 1 and 2. If we could lobby Waze to change the label on the North American server for the English I18n translation, that would go a long way toward alleviating that concern.
[ img ]
CM: USA
SM: Michigan, Vermont
AM: Ann Arbor, MI & Thunder Bay, ON
WME Michigan
davielde
 
Posts: 1219
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:01 pm
Location: Michigan, USA
Has thanked: 461 times
Been thanked: 759 times

Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

Postby davielde » Fri Dec 12, 2014 1:28 am

We had a MI "editors" hangout before it was cool to have state AM Hangouts.

Terry, while I agree that the mean approach could be used, I would actually weight it so that rank 3 holds more weight, then 2&4, then 1&5. For example, a rank 3's vote would count three times, rank 4's twice, and rank 5's once, etc.
[ img ]
CM: USA
SM: Michigan, Vermont
AM: Ann Arbor, MI & Thunder Bay, ON
WME Michigan
davielde
 
Posts: 1219
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:01 pm
Location: Michigan, USA
Has thanked: 461 times
Been thanked: 759 times

Re: Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

Postby davielde » Tue Dec 23, 2014 8:42 pm

TerryPurdue wrote:Hypothetically, if you found out tomorrow that the Great Lakes Region announced the following minimum lock standard, would you have a problem with it?

  • PS: 2
  • mH: 3
  • MH: 3
  • Freeway: 5
  • Freeway Ramp: 5
If you don't agree, now would be a good time to make a case for why the standard should differ from the list above.


After weighing everyone's input and thinking it over, I would consider mH at 2. At this point, I would rather try to reduce the locks on mH urban surface streets and foster editor growth. There is a much greater jump from 2 to 3 than there used to be, and I can see how waiting until 25k for some of the surface streets classed as minor arterial could be a bit overkill.

There have also been some comments on reducing freeways from 5, and I wanted to address that as well. Considering the volume of traffic and the fact that rarely do freeways *need* to be edited, I would keep them at 5 to avoid the temptation to unnecessarily tweak what is typically the most mature road type. Yes, there is occasional work to be done, but if you are going to do a major freeway project, anyone less than 5 should submit an unlock request, and we'll have a record of what is needed and why. In any case, this is not just a GLR consideration but widely adopted nationally.
[ img ]
CM: USA
SM: Michigan, Vermont
AM: Ann Arbor, MI & Thunder Bay, ON
WME Michigan
davielde
 
Posts: 1219
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:01 pm
Location: Michigan, USA
Has thanked: 461 times
Been thanked: 759 times

Re: Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

Postby davielde » Mon Jan 05, 2015 8:21 pm

Adding more confusion: Should a road with a "preferred" or "unfavored" routing type be locked based on the stated road type or the routing equivalent?
[ img ]
CM: USA
SM: Michigan, Vermont
AM: Ann Arbor, MI & Thunder Bay, ON
WME Michigan
davielde
 
Posts: 1219
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:01 pm
Location: Michigan, USA
Has thanked: 461 times
Been thanked: 759 times

Re: Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

Postby davielde » Fri Jan 09, 2015 2:23 am

I would not consider parks critical, but anything critical should be 3+. A "trusted" user can edit the details in the app without approval when the lock is too low. For example, I caught Boise State University today, which had been renamed and recategorized as a fast food burger joint. Imagine that happening to a hospital or airport.
[ img ]
CM: USA
SM: Michigan, Vermont
AM: Ann Arbor, MI & Thunder Bay, ON
WME Michigan
davielde
 
Posts: 1219
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:01 pm
Location: Michigan, USA
Has thanked: 461 times
Been thanked: 759 times

Re: Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

Postby davielde » Sat Jan 10, 2015 4:20 pm

TerryPurdue wrote:
Lonewolf147 wrote:Well stated Helgramite. That all falls in line with what I was thinking already. But, I would still argue to bump up Railroads a bit. There are enough news articles about people following GPS onto Railroads. I would not want someone* to change the type, inadvertently or maliciously, and cause these kinds of issues.

*Someone being the many time mentioned lower level untrained.

Believe Helg is following the USA guidance for railroads, updated on 24 Oct 2014. They clearly state L2 locks on railroads nationwide.

I boggled when I saw that, but since such changes must have already be heavily discussed/reviewed, I think we need to go with it.

Waze ran an update awhile ago that changed all railroads to L2. We didn't have much input there, and most were previously locked as high as possible.
[ img ]
CM: USA
SM: Michigan, Vermont
AM: Ann Arbor, MI & Thunder Bay, ON
WME Michigan
davielde
 
Posts: 1219
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:01 pm
Location: Michigan, USA
Has thanked: 461 times
Been thanked: 759 times

Re: Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

Postby davielde » Tue Jan 13, 2015 3:52 am

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.


Those are the levels that we had previously agreed to in Michigan. For your MI editors waiting, I would just say go for it. Most of my "home" territory around Ann Arbor has been that way since the summer. If the final GLR levels differ in any way, you or I could sweep through at some point and change them as needed.
[ img ]
CM: USA
SM: Michigan, Vermont
AM: Ann Arbor, MI & Thunder Bay, ON
WME Michigan
davielde
 
Posts: 1219
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:01 pm
Location: Michigan, USA
Has thanked: 461 times
Been thanked: 759 times

Re: Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

Postby dmcrandall » Sat Jan 10, 2015 3:59 am

Interesting conversation, and one that has potentially nationwide ramifications...especially in light of the vandalism that was done to the Texas maps today.

Looking at all the various suggestions for locking standards, if you had to, as a region, submit one standard for consideration as a national standard, what would it be?

In Arizona we use:

L5 - Freeway
L4 - Ramps & MH
L3 - mH
L2 - PS
L1 - Streets & PLRs

Ramps are set at 4 for consistency. AGSs are set at the appropriate level for their FC classification, which is the lowest classification they connect to.

We used to set MH at L3 in rural areas, but determined that, since most of Arizona could be classified as rural, a lot of damage could be done in outlying areas before an editor happened across it.

How would this structure impact your areas in a negative manner? I think this is the question that needs to be answered by all states and regions. What negative factors could a standard cause, and is it enough to warrant a different national standard, or something that could be taken care of in the State Wiki?
"This ain't Dodge City. And you ain't Bill Hickok." -Matthew Quigley
[ img ]
US Country Manager (Seriously out of date)
dmcrandall
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 469
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 6:05 pm
Location: If It's Tuesday, This Must Be Phoenix
Has thanked: 257 times
Been thanked: 220 times

Re: Great Lakes Road Lock Standards

Postby falco_sparverius » Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:49 pm

AMs: this item is out for a vote
https://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 7#p1329025

All GLR editors: we would like your input on this measure too.Your input helps us gauge community support and address any possible concerns.
http://goo.gl/forms/N1Ad0S1GX4

Please note: The survey will be open until Friday, March 4th, 2016 - 8:00pm EST
[ img ][ img ]
R5 State Manager for Michigan (MI)
falco_sparverius
Waze Mentor
Waze Mentor
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:01 pm
Location: Michigan, USA
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 28 times

PreviousNext

Return to US Great Lakes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JustinS83