When you do change the name, please leave all existing names and redirects inplace, and modify them to point to the new page. This way we don't orphan any existing links or bookmarks people may be using.

Sent using Tapatalk for Android

kentsmith9 wrote:DL, great work keeping this page active and up to date.

What do you think about removing the construction template? IMO I think it is solid enough that you don't need that template. If your objective is to give users a link to this forum, you can easily include a link in the opening paragraph.

Additionally I recommend linking to this forum from the discussion page using the {{ForumLink}} template.

I would always be cautious giving a novice editor a script that editor might not understand the reasons for much the same way a math teacher would be reluctant to give a calculator to a student who hasn't yet mastered basic arithmetic.

I would recommend a bullet list of safe edits, and surprisingly unsafe ones at the bottom. Public road names (following Waze abbreviations), road directionality, and simple correction to turn retsrictions are generally safe. Adding a new public road or correcting a significant error in the alignment of a road is usually safe. PLRs as shown in the detailed text are surprisingly unsafe. Highways, whether in reality or as listed in Waze road type, are typically going to cause more alarms when done by junior editors (assuming it is even possible, since they are usually locked).

Responding to error reports (UR) is safe as long as the editor is aware of UR etiquette and has someone to ask for help if it turns out the problem is not one they can figure out how to solve.

I'm sure we can throw in a bunch of other stuff.

I introduced a few "don't panic" messages, since the page contains so many "you might be doing it wrong" messages. They all consist a friendly message saying that there's stuff that's safe and easy to do, with an internal link within the article.

I know we have previously confirmed that editor-created red roads will show up in the client after some amount of time (which I think was not always next tile update). Do we have evidence that it does more than display, and that it actually routes?

Make it so, Voludu Two.

I'm going to disagree with the "no need for redundant turn/segment time restrictions" edit. Either way is fine, and there can be benefits to doing both. Restricting the segment is least likely to result in a missed restriction, but is not satisfactory alone due to the "only on exit" limitation of segment restrictions. I have seen this done as a matter of fact many times.

I would say that WT deletion should be at the discretion of the RC or at least an SM.

As to adding them, we could provide a statement s/t like:

There may be situations where Walking Trails are a net benefit to the map. A discussion of some of these situations can be found [h:/forum.link here]. Any additions, whether matching the forum discussion or not, should be cleared with an RC or SM, and locked by them to an appropriate rank (typically nn).

I'm just getting caught up, so a belated "you are awesome, man" to DwarfLord, for the now even better Edits to avoid (USA).

You might consider playing with some expand/collapse code Deeploz has used.