The Incorrect Edits article has been withdrawn from the Global Wiki. It is now a USA-only article. As a result, we must change the article title to include USA.

This is a great opportunity to revisit the name of this article. Though I originally named it "Incorrect Edits" I've never been especially happy with that title. At the time it seemed less negative than "Common Editing Mistakes", but I'm not sure there's really much difference.

Over time several editors have suggested a change in tone throughout to make this more of a quick-start guide for those looking to improve their skills than a simple list of not-to-do for those who have not yet digested (or possibly even seen) the full wiki. I've always resisted that, for reasons I've stated several times.

However, I am definitely open to changing the title to something more reassuring. Here are some thoughts off the top of my head.

Please note I am talking about the actual title that readers see at the top of the article. Of course any and all of these can be redirects, and at least one already is. The question here is the article's primary title.

1. Common editing mistakes/USA (based on a phrase familiar to US editors).
2. Oops! Common editing mistakes/USA (more lighthearted)
3. Edits to avoid/USA
4. Incorrect edits/USA (existing title)

I currently lean towards #3 but am glad to consider alternatives.

This page has now been moved to "Edits to avoid (USA)".

The move automatically generated a redirect from "Incorrect edits", so no links were broken in this process.

I have updated a number of redirects to point directly to the new name. However, there are a number more outside the core wiki, including some in user spaces and others belonging to other countries, that I felt uncomfortable adjusting. These will still work of course, just with double redirection.

An editor reading the following segment at the end of the Walking Trails section apparently may have understood this to mean "never delete complex efforts, even if they are noncompliant":

Edits to Avoid (USA) wrote:Before removing it, however, consider how much effort went into its creation. Do not modify a complex effort by an active editor, even if it is non-compliant, without first sending the author a link to this article via PM and allowing him or her considerable time, perhaps several weeks, to modify or remove it.

I would like to clarify this with the following change:

Proposed change wrote:In the case of complex work by an active editor, if it is noncompliant it will still need to be modified or removed. First, however, please attempt contact with the segments' creator and include a link to this article. Common courtesy and community spirit require that he or she be alerted and given a generous opportunity to respond.

****

Also, a minor change to the same section. The following wording has been the source of some confusion:

Edits to Avoid (USA) wrote:Does the Walking Trail appear intended for routing over a maintained dirt road drivable by at least a 4X4? Then change the road type to Dirt Road / 4X4 Trail. If the dirt road is rarely driven and inaccessible to most drivers, such as a major fire road only used by forest-service personnel, disconnect it from the road network. If the dirt road is gated but driven frequently to and from destinations, Private Road may be a more appropriate road type.

I'd like to change it as follows:

Proposed change wrote:Does the Walking Trail appear to indicate a road intended and maintained for common use by street-legal motor vehicles? Then change the road type to an appropriate drivable road type, and if the road is available for driving only to a handful of officially-authorized personnel, such as emergency or fire crews, be sure it is disconnected from the road network.

The changes to the Walking Trails section of the Edits to Avoid (USA) article have been made.

Thank you for your support

The section of the Edits to Avoid (USA) article regarding Misuse of Area Places refers to a very senior editor who asks that all Area Places be left untouched, even if they violate the wiki.

It never felt right to me to advise new editors that just one "very senior editor" could unilaterally require that wiki-violating Area Places be left permanently on the map for all editors and Wazers to see forever. But this person was adamant and had the highest possible community credentials, and nobody else seemed too concerned about it. Thus the language in Edits to Avoid.

I recently found that there have been some changes to who has what credentials, and I would like to revisit this part of Edits to Avoid. Instead of the following language...

In at least one region a very senior editor asks that all Area Places be left untouched. If you are editing in such a region simply leave all Area Places exactly as you found them even if they violate the wiki. In other regions a senior editor may wish to be informed before you significantly modify any Area Place.

If you are not editing in such a region, and if the Place would be correct and compliant as a Point Place, convert it to a Point Place and adjust its location for best routing. Otherwise, delete it.

Always, before removing or modifying an Area Place, take a moment to consider how much effort went into its creation. Do not modify a complex Area Place, even a non-compliant one, without first sending the author a link to this article via PM and allowing him or her considerable time, perhaps several weeks, to modify or remove it. In the rare case of disagreement, contact an area manager or local Champ.

...I would like to propose this language (no change to third paragraph):

First, ensure you are familiar with local standards for Area Places. Some regions, formally or informally, relax some of the wiki's constraints on Area Places. See your state page for details, or check with an Area or State Manager.

If an Area Place does not satisfy global or local guidelines for Area Places, but it would be correct and compliant as a Point Place, convert it to a Point Place and adjust its location for best routing. If it would not be correct or compliant even as a Point Place, remove it.

Always, before removing or modifying an Area Place, take a moment to consider how much effort went into its creation. Do not modify a complex Area Place, even a non-compliant one, without first sending the author a link to this article via PM and allowing him or her considerable time, perhaps several weeks, to modify or remove it. In the rare case of disagreement, contact an area manager or local Champ.

Chucksways, thanks for noticing the problem. The Edits to Avoid (USA) article was my contribution and with a couple of minor exceptions I've been the only one maintaining it. However, I am in the process of reducing the time I spend on Waze. Barring some unforeseen burst of energy and enthusiasm, I don't expect I will be putting in the necessary effort to adapt the article to Waze's massive recent changes.

I have never felt that I "owned" Edits to Avoid. I knew from the day I started it that it belonged to the community, not to me. I was always told that we follow a process for updating our wiki that involves a generous community comment period and emphasizes consensus. I agree completely with these principles and wholeheartedly offer "Edits to Avoid" to this process. I would be delighted if the community wanted to maintain this article.

cybernixon wrote:could we make sure to label images as either good or poor examples?

Thanks for the kind words!

Your suggestion has more irony to it than you know. The image was originally in the article as an example of what not to do, and was labeled as such. We used to limit the Parking Lot Place to generic public parking for people who might park there and walk or take public transportation elsewhere. Our idea was that public parking was the only kind of parking Wazers would care about; it'd be pointless to be routed to a private parking lot that they couldn't use, right? Well, the lots in that image were private lots dedicated to specific destinations and did not comply with our guidelines, so they were in the article as a negative example.

Then, about a year ago, Waze announced a new desire for us to map every off-street parking lot in the world, private, public, restricted, whatever, all of them! Yay! Even if the actual destination is marked in Waze as "parking available for customers" Waze still wants to be able to recommend a parking lot. It may be for another business three blocks away that will tow you if you park there, but at least it's an option. (Sarcasm aside, please read the Lot Type section of the Places/Parking Lot article).

So recently another editor repurposed that image from an example of doing it wrong to an example of doing it right. The text is indeed a bit vague on that point. Please feel welcome to change it if you like!

No objection on my part as the original author.

FYI, I have modified the section on "Excessive use of Parking-Lot Roads" in the Edits to Avoid article to align with the recent changes to our conventions on mapping parking lots.

I did not want to rewrite the section at this time, so I simply reworded it to make it clear what used to be considered wrong is no longer thus.

The changes are, I believe, uncontroversial, so I've gone ahead with them.

(P.S. Big thanks to editor Vince1612 for moving this thread from its former home in the global wiki discussion to its proper home in US wiki discussion.)

Looks good. Two things:

1) Looks like you need some screenshots of the examples listed. Are you working on taking those screenshots or adding them from other wiki pages?

2) Some wiki pages already exits for the mistakes mentioned. Will you be adding links to the respective pages?