Perhaps a better compromise would be simply to have a script that would automatically clean up URs with no user input and/or no conversations after 60-90 days.

I personally think that most URs that show up for no apparent reason are probably new users farming bonus points. Perhaps the best solution would to eliminate the bonus points or try to incorporate a method by which the UR has to be actually resolved before someone gets the points. It may cut down on the "missing overpass" URs on a road that doesn't have a bridge under/over another road for miles.

dbraughlr wrote:Put me down as opposed to requiring reporters to complete a UR submission online.
I am opposed to automatically purging older URs. The accumulation of URs in an untended area is a valuable signal to real problems and priorities.

Many URs contain enough information to complete with no interaction with the user..

Would like to know what you mean by "Many". I'm not lying when I say I believe 90% can't be solved and users won't reply to further information requests. For discussion purposes reduce that to 50% and it will mean that half of the time you spend opening, commenting and opening URs for improving the map is wasted time.

Regarding accumulation I admit is a valuable tool because the cluster of URs reveals something. But I'd change 100 UR's that may lead you to find the error for a single one well explained with the actual error.

dbraughlr wrote: It would be far better to have Waze improve the collection and presentation of data with the UR.

The actual GPS trace with little arrows, gps resolution distance ("accuracy"), the route being given, and to what roads Waze snapped should always be given.

The route being given should make clear all turn instructions including advance warnings and path reversals.

I would much rather see effort put into improving the data collection.

This is what I want to see. Two short green and purple lines don't tell me much. I want to see at least where the routes split and come back together.

Put me down as opposed to requiring reporters to complete a UR submission online.
I am opposed to automatically purging older URs. The accumulation of URs in an untended area is a valuable signal to real problems and priorities.

Many URs contain enough information to complete with no interaction with the user.

Furthermore, just because one editor can't figure it out from the information given doesn't mean that another editor cannot.


It would be far better to have Waze improve the collection and presentation of data with the UR.

The actual GPS trace with little arrows, gps resolution distance ("accuracy"), the route being given, and to what roads Waze snapped should always be given.

The route being given should make clear all turn instructions including advance warnings and path reversals.

I would much rather see effort put into improving the data collection.

Calopez78 wrote:

dbraughlr wrote:Many URs contain enough information to complete with no interaction with the user..

Would like to know what you mean by "Many".

I mean that I correct a lot of real problems solely from the initial report.
Suppose that it is only 10%. I do not wish to forfeit that 10%.
I think there are much better solutions to address your concerns without losing valuable reports.

lordmage wrote:the reporter can select appropriate Subjects like "turn not allowed" or anything else and add as much as they can to the report like road names or intersection.

First of all, "turn not allowed" is a terrible subject.
It doesn't say whether the turn is allowed but Waze didn't use it or Waze tried to make a turn that isn't legal. It doesn't say what kind of turn. It doesn't say why the turn isn't allowed.
Fixing that subject would benefit everyone.

Where you have recurring reports, do you really have to close in only 9 days?
Could you send the reporter an email address where he can write to you?
When I've had multiple reports, I've usually found the problem by looking harder.

this idea has merit. my suggestion on it is simple.
most of the times the reporter is tap driving which in most states you can not do anyway hands-free uses only.
when someone wants to report an error. App will save the point and the route driven until they are about to close app.
app then says you reported an error please give us more details on it.
the reporter can select appropriate Subjects like "turn not allowed" or anything else and add as much as they can to the report like road names or intersection. then submit. App uploads report with as much data as possible like. Route line for more then it is currently and some of the back route before the report, at least an equal measure. So we can see where the reporter came from for at least 2 miles before the report and were they went for more then 2 miles. another thing that would come in handy with the reports are the times in which they deviated from a route if they where navigating to a point.

Currently Due to how the system is setup. the reports are after the error at a stopped point or at some point along the error when they can type thur to submit it. if you Remove the need to drive type and make it easier for reports after the fact in the same session we may find more information given in the report.

in my area there have been quite a few general errors with no responses over and over for the same point. example UR received for a point. Editors ask for more info. there is no response at all it will close up to 9 days later or more then almost the next day at the same place the same type of UR and the Same place. ask for more info about it. no response. repeat. i think it might come in handy for the reporter's user name in the app to be listed rater then Reporter as well but that is a whole other issue

I'm pretty sure this has already been suggested, but either way. I agree!

Maybe we can compromise by having a pop up right before Waze ask if you want to shutdown. If there was/were reports, would you like to add more info to your "General map error?": Yes/No/Cancel request.