I think you are correct that we are looking at this from very different points of view. I have a different purpose in mind.I can see now that the changes I made don't match your purpose for the article.
If I were ever to try some editing here again, I would do it with your original purpose in mind.

Please revert my changes.

I really do like the content.
I am thinking of taking a copy and writing a different intro, to make it more of a "welcome to editing; here are some common newbie mistakes you can avoid". If you like the idea, I can even set up a transcludable for the part that is used in more than one article.

We agree perfectly

I even like all your "wrong this, wrong that" headings. I'll give you a buzz when I make some progress on "my own" (even though I 'll mostly be stealing your material).

Thanks again!

Possibly a glossary for editors?
overlap
split
bow tie
detour suppression

One way this might be done is via the SMW (semantic media wiki) extension. But I'm not certain on that.

With a caution that validator is no substitute for talking to experienced editors, I think it is OK to recommend validator to beginners. When validator finds things that seem to have been done intentionally by experienced editors, or even beginners working with the guidance of experienced editors, they need to ask rather than assuming it should be undone.

And, of course, validator doesn't find incorrect turn arrows. Shift-Z helps with that.

but recommending "what to do" is not the same as cautioning against incorrect edits.

Maybe this info on scripts etc belongs in another document for beginners. That one probably has not been written. In the end, it might fit in a companion to this one and a welcome new editors one.

For now, if the info has no better home, I suggest -- leave it where it is. When the obvious future home is built, it can easily be moved. With the usual caveats, validator is a good teaching tool.

I agree. Hence my efforts with "Welcome to Waze Editing" -- which aims to tell new editors what TO do.

RE: red roads.

The page currently says

These roads may appear on the Waze client but are useless for routing.

but that is incorrect. Red roads created in the editor are used in routing.
I would suggest reorganizing this paragraph slightly to point out how to recognized red roads that will not be used in routing (lack of "updated by" line indicates road was created using pave feature). I will be happy to make this change.

Here is an example:
https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... s=84154550
and you can see it routed here:
https://www.waze.com/livemap?lon=-75.66 ... =-75.66293

I made the edit I referenced above, but did not make the second edit you brought up.

Yes. this is why I brought it up.

Somebody fixed the example I recently observed -- red AGCs which have since been removed.
https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... s=84154550

I think a test would be easy. It could be done in a test area.

qwaletee wrote:Make it so, Voludu Two.

I found the second red road reference and corrected the section.