subs5 wrote: Another method is to have two entries Surface stations (Area), Underground Stations/Stops (Point)
There is no need for a note then and might be clearer to the first time reader.

I prefer this approach.

Its a bit hard to tell if what is solely USA related. I'd be happy to merge the prior topic here if appropriate.

The original discussion was raised to revise the guidance on "combined naming for area-point combinations to explain the idea more clearly, provide examples and to have it mirror actual practice more closely. Much of this was considered in conjunction with our efforts to standardize names of retail chains."

The Proposed Update was created at that time with respect to the existing global places pages.

Does anyone have any suggestions or objections with regard to revising this guidance as proposed for the US?

I'm hearing no objections to updating the US wiki, to correspond to the Proposed Update.

#4 Can not be converted to a place point or place area

Should be: Cannot be converted to a place point or place area

On a different note, calling them Residential Place Points, seems to go against the grain of the described usage. First, you compare them to HNs. Next, you say they can be used for businesses. This only leads to confusion about usage vs description. Even the title is misleading.

Perhaps something definable is appropriate since it only provides address search capability, like Incognito Place Point (IPP), where the definition is: "with one's identity concealed", https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incognito.

It literally says what it does, can be used for residential or business, and eliminates any discussion about needing to use something else. It can also go hand-in-hand with PP, APs, and HNs.

That's my 2¢ worth.

jack_hmr wrote:Please consider these suggestions concerning rest areas:

1. In the When to use Area or Point table, change the Rest Area / Scenic Overlook category from Point to Area in order to be consistent with the USA Rest areas wiki
https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/Re ... ng_a_Place

2. Reference the USA Rest areas wiki in the comments column for Rest Area / Scenic Overlook

3. Reference the USA Rest areas wiki in the Detailed guidance for select categories

Since this topic was mainly about incorporating changes into the WoP and already took place, over 5 months ago... it would be better to open a new thread / topic discussing your proposal so it will be easier found and discussed.

We try not to post on old threads. It’s a forum rule not to post on one over 6 months old, but this one isn’t quite there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jack_hmr wrote:The red warning at the top of the USA Places page and the discussion tab of that page is what directed me to this thread for discussion.

Did I misunderstand them?

No, you didn’t misunderstand them. Yes. You are correct this is the place it points to. I apologize as I missed how that specific WoP page points to this thread still for some reason.

tonestertm wrote:No, jack_hmr, you did nothing wrong. That text does indeed link directly to this broadly-named thread.

And perhaps, after jumping on this person who wanted to help, someone could have actually read the suggestions made, which were LONG overdue, and made the necessary corrections.

I had independently made the edits to the table after learning of the problem elsewhere, came here to post about it, and found this nonsense about etiquette. (I have now added Rest areas to the Detailed guidance, as well. Thanks, Jack!).

Suggestions:
- Change/remove the construction box (as was suggested months ago by Kent), or at least the link therein (point to the forum, rather than a specific thread?).

- Think before you type.

I didn’t realize what thread this was in my originally reply. I had only noticed the date since last post was several months ago, which (6 months) is against forum guidelines. However, this wasn’t that old. I know sometimes a new discussion in its own thread is more easy to follow. That is why I made the suggestion. I’m not a high enough rank to just “make the change” to the USA wiki without it being approved by others for formality sake. Therefor, I agreed with his suggestions, liked the post, and recommended a way to get it approved faster.

Your assumption that I “jumped on the person” is incorrect. We actually edit in the same state and work together regularly. Had I wanted to “jump all over him”, I would have gone to the SM or higher about an issue. I was only pointing out a way to get things to move through the USA wiki update process faster.

Your idea of pointing to a forum instead of a specific thread would be better suited as threads can get long and hard to follow with multiple topics going on at once inside them. The places page is very broad and having a single thread for it doesn’t seem proper. We have several threads going on about place page updates outside this single thread itself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Isn't back-end data by definition "hidden"? (If yes, let's remove the "hidden" as it would be redundant.)

Responding to the proposal to add a map comment whenever multiple entry points are used:

Since multiple entry points are presumably going to be in full production in the not-too-distant future (word avoidance), some editors have been gradually adding these. I don't see why we need to add map comments each time, especially for places that are locked to, say 4+ -- it should be self-evident what's going on.

I also agree with sketch. If the PP and the entry point would be placed in the same location, I see no reason to require the extra step of creating an entry point. Not all PP's need an entry point, and while I don't have a problem with editors creating them when not needed, I do not want us to require entry points if unneeded.