by iainhouse (Posted Wed, 01 Aug 2018 17:26:35 GMT)
I think it is of very little importance, given that cameras very rarely change. Honestly I'm pleased to see them at least be consistent with other WME objects, but I can think of plenty of more important things Waze could spend their time on.
If we are to have a guideline, I would suggest a minimum lock level of 3 and then "match" the road the camera is situated on. So if that segment is locked higher (auto or manual), the camera should be locked to the same level. It's incredibly unlikely that we could persuade Waze to detect the lock level of the nearest segment and apply it to a camera, so we'll just have to use judgement.
Another idea that I'll throw out there: if a camera is definitely confirmed as existing/not existing but GSV disagrees, then locking it at a higher level would be appropriate. Maybe 4, maybe 5. And a map comment is a good idea.
It does mean that now, given a request from a lower level editor for a camera, we can downlock it for them to make the edit and then up-lock if needed. But bear in mind that editing a camera really counts as "a simple edit that the responding editor may do themself". If you do edit it yourself, then you should still reduce the lock level if appropriate.
As for down-locking cameras only "because they are locked too highly" - I see absolutely no purpose to this and will not look favourably on such requests.
![;)]( "Wink")
If a camera needs changes made then down-locking is appropriate whoever makes the edit. If it doesn't need changes then it doesn't need down-locking!
Read Main Topic
If a camera needs changes made then down-locking is appropriate whoever makes the edit. If it doesn't need changes then it doesn't need down-locking!
