Here is how I suggest you do this: when any segment entering a JB is 'touched' in a way that would currently cause a 'flag' to warn the user that the segment is locked, WME would instead 'take a quick snapshot' of everything involved in the JB and save that information.
A pseudo picture of the JB would be created where every segment entering the JB would be 'cut' where it crosses the boarder line of the JB.
The portion of each segment within the JB would retain the current segment # and other information as appropriate. The portion of the crossing segments remaining outside would be assigned NEW 'temporary' segment # and get their data as if the segments had actually been cut at the border at the time the JB was originally created.
When a 'save' is done, the process would be reversed with restoration of original data where nothing has been touched. Where changes were actually made outside the JB to a segment that entered the JB, appropriate data merger would take place automatically, retaining the segment # for the portion of the segment entering the JB and assigning a new number to the portion that has been created by the cutting.

Currently, when you try to connect an existing segment (segment E) to a segment leading to a Junction Box (Segment L), the WME won't allow to create a Junction.

On the other hand, creating a new segment (segment N), Segment L can be split, but then a saving error will happen (operation not supported).

This different behavior is confusing and it's not easy to understand why it is like that. This mostly looks like a bug to the user when the Junction box is far away and not even on screen.

To fix both problems, WME should allow splitting a segment L if the split happens outside the Junction box area, and update Segment L's ID inside the roundabout.

Hi,
very often I am notified of an event that needs closure after it started, then I go to select the many segments that must be closed.
When I want to add a proper closure on them, there are already dozen of closure made by drivers and I have to remove all of them one by one before adding mine. That's annoying because it is slow, and sometimes new closure are made by drivers while I am removing them :

And overlapping closure are not a real problem because when it is done by waze app it happens often so it seems it is a check added by WME that lead only to bad ergonomy.

By: kpouer
Link to original suggestion: https://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1525&t=279796

Hi,
when editing from the feed (closing MP, UR), after saving WME moves to a random place where it thinks there are other UR I can solve. It is extremely annoying. When editing I save often because of various save bugs, and as soon as I saved it moves somewhere else and I cannot find where I was editing to finish the job.
Same problem when saving, if Waze thinks there is a problem it moves my map to where it thinks the problem is, and if it is a long road, it happens often that the road is offscreen.
So to summarize :

NEVER MOVE THE MAP AUTOMATICALLY.

by kpouer
Link to original suggestion: https://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1525&t=243357

When an editor uses the new forum sharing options which is great, because of the order of the data on the request, valuable information is being overlooked.

For example, the current Unlock Request automatically fills in the following information:

Hi Editors,

I would like to be able to edit the following segment(s).
Your help would be greatly appreciated.

Permalink: https://waze.com/en-US/editor?env=usa&lat=29.63406&lon=-104.27920&zoom=5&segments=516527406
Reason:
Unlock to level:

Thank you in advance,

The "reason" and "unlock to level" kind of blend in.

My suggestions would be to
1. automatically fill in the "unlock to level" information with the rank of the editor making the request.
2. move the "reason" above the PL

As a sample:

Hi Editors,

I would like to be able to edit the following segment(s).
Your help would be greatly appreciated.

Reason:

Permalink: https://waze.com/en-US/editor?env=usa&lat=29.63406&lon=-104.27920&zoom=5&segments=516527406

Unlock to level: 1 (autofilled based off rank)

Thank you in advance,

As a bonus, adding the current lock level of the segment would be nice.
Instead of
"Unlock to level: 1" (autofilled based off rank)
it could be
"Unlock from level 5 to level: 1" (autofilled based off rank)

Thanks for your consideration

There are many cases in highways where there is an on-ramp shortly followed by an off-ramp. In those cases, the right lane/s serve for those who get on the HW from the on-ramp, as well as those who get off the HW on the off-ramp.
A wazer that gets on the HW from the on-ramp and has to continue on the HW should get lane guidance to go onto the left lanes when approachng the next junction of the off-ramp, otherwise, he might continue on the right lanes and get off the HW.
A wazer that comes on the HW and approaches the off-ramp, but has to continue on the HW does not have to get lane guidance (it is disturbing to get lane guidance for every off-ramp on the HW).
The suggetion is to allow a conditional lane guidance that will allow to define separate lane guidance according to where the wazer came from (not to be confuzed with another suggestion to deal with lane guidance for a turn that will be taken later on).

Requesting push notifications for events through the editors' community still doesn't work very well and is not rewarding.

Now contributors get a notification if their event was published by Waze staff but they get no notification about the event being reviewed at first. If Waze decided to not send a notification, the contributor doesn't get to know the reason, nor the information that the decision has been made!

When I enter major events I -as a local member- often know that they have a high impact on traffic in the near area.

I suggest adding a tickbox to clearly show that the submitter expects a push notification for the respective event to consider for Waze!

I realize Waze can show the speed limit on screen and alert when a user goes over the speed limit, but the app does not make any kind of auditory alert when there is a speed limit change (ex: “The speed limit is now 70 MPH”)

Such an alert would be useful because if a driver could know that the speed limit has been, say, raised from 60 to 65, he or she can then drive faster sooner. It might otherwise take 5 or 10 minutes before the driver notices the speed limit was raised - by seeing this on the screen.

Following the mass import of data for 3 ad campaigns (McDonald's, M&S, Aldi) by the Ads / Geo-ops teams the UK map is now littered with false or incorrect city names. These must be removed from the map immediately as they are NOT city names and should not exist.

The UK Champs have asked privately for this to be done but for some reason this request needs to be public.

This is NOT a change to UK mapping, this is simply following common sense that Counties should never be used as a city name and fake city names should not be made up. Removing these bad city names prevents the spread of false information on the UK map.

We have repeatedly asked for the Ads team to work with the UK community to reduce the poor / incorrect data that keeps getting dumped on the map.

The list includes, but not limited to;

Berkshire
Cambridgeshire
Cheshire
Cornwall
County Antrim
County Durham
Cumbria
Devon
Dorset
East Yorkshire
Essex
Flintshire
Hampshire
Hertfordshire
Greater London
Greater Manchester
Lancashire
Leicestershire
Lincolnshire
London
Oxfordshire
Merseyside
North Lanarkshire
North Lincolnshire
Shropshire
Staffordshire
South Yorkshire
Warwickshire
West Midlands
West Yorkshire
Wirral
Worcestershire

Staff should provide a list of all cities created by the Ad-Ops-Maps team to the UK Community, it is highly unlikely any new city names will be correct. If your own Staff can't add data to the map correctly then they should not be touching the map at all!

You promote the community managed nature of Waze but time and again fail to respect the hard work and countless hours of the editors who contribute to the map.