Get a sneak peek at whats next for Permanent Hazards on our April 7th Office Hours!
Post by kentsmith9
I would agree with Military over DoD for the same reasons. I also assume we stop with Military since this page is all about the security and associated terminology around a military installation. Therefore it should NOT be a Government installation page.

Also, I like installation over base only based on my assumption that all bases are installations, but not all installations are bases. Therefore installation is the larger set of possible types that may be mapped. At least that is my non-military background mind at work.

Also remember that all these descriptions can be added as redirects to the page, so everyone should be able to find it no matter what we call it and what they think it is.

A few formatting notes I had not noticed before now based on our developing style guide (mostly based on Wikipedia):

1. The use of single "=" for section headers is reserved for the title of the page. Since the title is formatted separately, you never actually see that formatting on the page. Therefore the first section should begin with double "==" and never be less.

2. Articles with more than one screen of text should have a lead (unnamed; no "=") section before the TOC. This is generally a 1-3 paragraph summary of everything important covered on the page.

3. The current first section is good to be used after the lead. Generally on a big page like this we would call that first section the == Overview ==.

4. Section names try not to repeat their prior (or subsequent) section names when possible. Use the hierarchy to help narrow down what is covered in a section.
currently wrote: == Naming ==
=== Road Segment City Name and Addresses ===
==== Primary Segment City Name ====
==== Alternate Segment City Name ====
==== Building Names and Address Information ====
==== Building Place Naming ====
Revised should be wrote: == Name and address == <-- this section covers both
=== Road === <-- reduce redundancy from next section
==== Primary City Name ==== <-- reduce redundancy from prior section
==== Alternate City Name ==== <-- reduce redundancy from prior section
=== Building === <-- bring up one level from Road and make one section; I see no reason to split their current content
5. The current Building Place Naming section never says to add a Place. We should be explicit there and wikilink to the place page on naming.

6. We might be better using 2 columns on the Abbreviation section. You can use the {{columns-list}} template.

7. Gates has its own section and also appears under Private Installation Gates. We should consider formatting that would bring them together one way or another.

8. Places has its own section and also appears under Naming. We should consider formatting that would bring them together one way or another.
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
Posts: 5766
Has thanked: 816 times
Been thanked: 1156 times
Send a message

Post by kentsmith9
Michelle-S wrote:I would like very much to work with you on making these changes to the page.
Michelle
I'm happy to edit it directly if that is easier for you.

I also would like to propose this alternate table format for the Resources section. We can just cut and paste the code if everyone is good with it.
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
Posts: 5766
Has thanked: 816 times
Been thanked: 1156 times
Send a message


Post by Michelle-S
Please ask the reporter if the number "21100" in the address they gave is the number for the building itself. You are correct that we do not list unit names, but we do add PPs by their building numbers. Our working Group learned that a general rule of thumb for Army Posts is that they often use their building numbers as their addresses. We found that Air Force and Navy often have different USPS addresses that differ from the building numbers. However, Each Post / Base can vary slightly. If that is Building 21100, then it's Primary name is "Building 21100". The PAO for that post may alternatively list it as Bldg 21100, B-21100, etc. We try to use various building alternative names, so a visitor will get the building they need whichever method they use to run a query in the Waze app. After confirming the building number, the address fields for the PP could read "21100 Medic Ave". You could then set the PLA with that address: Parking - Bldg 21100, same address, and so on.
Michelle-S
Posts: 46
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 56 times
Send a message

Post by Michelle-S
That sounds correct. As written in the guidance, the 'City Name' fields for all road segments get the full name: "Puget Sound Navy Ship Yard", for simplest support from the Jane TTS. Then Places get the abbreviation, such as:
GNC (Puget Sound NSY access only)
Post Office (Puget Sound NSY access only)
and so forth.
-Michelle-s
nidnarb wrote:
subs5 wrote:
nidnarb wrote:I thought there where approved abbreviations for naval ship yards but i dont see those now? I'm pretty positive there's more than the one we have here in WA.
There are three other public shipyards besides your Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Pearl Harbor.

Are you talking about using SY in the city name? Shipyard should be spelled out just like Fort is spelled out in the city name.

If you are talking about using in a point or area place's name, then we have the list of approved acronyms that are used throughout the country for terms that are stand alone. ex Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base would be Kings Bay NSB.

But the shipyard term is part of the acronym vice being a separate prefix or suffix. Ex. Norfok Naval Shipyard is NNSY vice being NN SY or N NSY. The list provided in the wazeopedia is for standardized terms used throughout the country. We do not list every base's acronym since it then has to be added to the Jane pronunciation list and tested.

Please let me know if the above does not adequately explain why shipyard is not included.
So if im understanding this correctly I should call it Puget Sound Navy Ship Yard in stead of Puget Sound NSY
which it currently is.

This military area is set as a city not a area place. Its previous name was retired and is now call Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility
Michelle-S
Posts: 46
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 56 times
Send a message

Post by Michelle-S
I’ve found a set of websites that are consistently proving to have Official, publicly published Maps for the DoD: The Exchanges and Commissaries. So far, the URLs I’ve found are:

AAFES
https://www.aafes.com/exchange-stores

Army & Air Force Exchanges
www.shopmyexchange.com

Navy Exchange
www.mynavyexchange.com

Commissaries
https://www.commissaries.com

These should soon be updated to the Wazeopedia Guidance.
Michelle-S
Posts: 46
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 56 times
Send a message

Post by Michelle-S
The following services can often provide good cantonment maps and information that list the services and places that a visitor or PCSing soldier and their family would need to go in order to in-process onto Military installations:
- Pass and ID
- The Visitor Control Center (VCC)
- Post / Base website
- Exchange website
- Commissary Website
- The Solider in-processing center
- The Post/Base Hotel (ie IHG)
- The billeting office
- MWR Website
- The hospital information desk

Whatever they have published, you can re-post those locations into Waze to include building/function names (if they have one), address, and most importantly the building numbers.
-Michelle-s
Michelle-S
Posts: 46
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 56 times
Send a message

Post by Michelle-S
kentsmith9 wrote:And one thing I forgot to mention that you commented upon. Pages titles should be singular. We have discussed this in the forums and hangouts over time. We have found instances where the title was better as plural than singular, but I don't think we codified that instance. It might be worth starting a separate discussion on page names and titles and then I can get it into the Wiki guidelines I am pulling together shortly.
If there was one thing I would like to do over again, it would be to change the name of the Military Wazeopedia and this forum to Military Installations, which is a simplified version of Department of Defense Installations or DoD Installations. The reason behind this is written into the WoP, that some installations, Air Force and Naval Bases being one type of them, are large areas and others are stand-alone offices, office complexes and leased properties.
Michelle-S
Posts: 46
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 56 times
Send a message

Post by Michelle-S
Kartografer wrote:
subs5 wrote: Understand that you haven't served in the Armed Forces, but when using their terminology, it is probably best to keep it in the format that DoD military and civilians and their support contractors understand. More of a when in Rome, do as the Romans do...
That's a great point. I imagine most military base mapping has been and will be done by those who have served in the military.
subs5 wrote:Understand that standardization has a purpose, but with all that needs to be fixed in the wazeopedia because of old superseded guidance, I would recommend fixing for style when content is being adjusted and volunteers focus on not having items that are incorrect.
I think you're right on that too. My wife often tells me I need to improve at prioritizing things :mrgreen: so I will go work on the airport page some more. I still think the use of "functional classification" to refer to how we decide road types is misleading, but as Ted has pointed out, there is an established protocol for changing this page, so I will just leave my input here. If the working group decides to use any of it, that's fine, but if not that's fine too.

Kartographer, I appreciate the time and effort you put into addressing the Military Wazeopedia. From a civilian grammar point of view, I see where you were getting your ideas. Thank you for listening to Tcavert and Subs5 when they pointed out that several of your changes were inadvertently making errors of Military proper names. Many of the terms and capitalizations used in the Military Installations guidance are Military terms and are spelled out versions of commonly used military acronyms. Like Subs5 wrote, we wrote the guidance to bridge the terms common to the Military community with the Waze system.
Most of the team that contributed to the guidance are current and former Service Members (SMs): Active Component (AC), Reserve Component (RC) and National Guard (NG) from all the Services. We are Active, Veterans, Retirees, DoD employees, and/or contractors. We wrote in proper names and also chose to write out many acronyms, but we left them capitalized for easy recognition. They are "terms of art" so to speak. For example, all SMs (Service Members, not State Managers in this case) go through SAS and OPSEC training (Safety and Security, Operational Security) usually annually at a minimum. These terms should stay in the WoP as written, because they are intended for a very specific group of Waze editors and their Chains of Command, also known as Chains of CMD (CoC).

So, after carefully going through your recommended changes, I agree that a couple of them are good observations. The rest I think should stand. I appreciate your taking the time to give the guidance a thorough review! If you have questions, please do ask here.

The goal is to help all our communities, both civilian and military.
Michelle-S
Posts: 46
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 56 times
Send a message
Last edited by Michelle-S on Tue May 23, 2017 3:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post by Michelle-S
subs5 wrote:Does anyone have a problem with changing "Functional Classification" and "FC" to "road type"?
Capitalization will match current usage.

This is for Section 1.4.2

This would remedy Kartografer's comment for clarification of the current Waze terminology.
I agree as well. I'd also like to change the title of the page and forum to DoD Installations.
Michelle
Michelle-S
Posts: 46
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 56 times
Send a message