As discussed here and according to Wiki and its 3 principles (General Public Use / General Purpose Use / Distinctive and Significant), I don’t think that street parkings like here and unnamed car parks should be added to the map…
These places just clutter up the search results and map display (when they are wide enough…)
There’s plenty of clutter generally on the maps… Clock tower here for example! http://bit.ly/29tGslJ
Recently I was back home in Greece and used Waze for about 2000km, so went back online to edit after the trip. Similarly to the parking lots you’re referring to, there are tens of thousands of “parks” there. Every patch of green, even lonely trees, are marked as parks…
You’re right that there’s plenty of clutter, but I reckon it’s fairly harmless unless it’s, err, causing harm 
(BTW, I like to use unnamed park places in suburban areas for green areas in the middle of housing estates. I think it looks good and also makes it easier for users to orient themselves if they can see physical things (like green open areas) both in front of them as well as on the Waze screen)
In terms of cleaning up, we could do with some of the thousands of unnamed roads being named. That would make the life of Waze users easier, since they would then get better directions too…
++David \ davidg666
David, I’ll adopt the idea for orientation purposes, that sounds good
One thing that makes them look very ugly to my eyes though, is extremely realistic geometry in WME. Same with places, they sometimes appear pointy, as if the map only uses 10 of the actual 65 points :lol:
Yeah, it’s far too easy to make a place with dozens (or even hundreds, in some places) of points without realising that simpler is better and that only a fairly simple shape is shown in the client.
The only place I’d consider using lots of points is for very large bodies of water (rivers, lakes or bits of sea) but even then it’s not necessary to go into too much detail.
++David \ davidg666