Sorry about the "incorrect capitalization." I had intended to edit that to something that didn't sound so rigid and absolutist. It would have been better to say "unconventional capitalization."

DwarfLord wrote:Is this not a high price to pay?

I don't think it is. I've been looking around the US wiki to try to find things that would need to be rewritten. Could you give me an example?

And the gets us back to the first page of the discussion. We started out looking at contrived prose, like "the junction box is the best way to box junctions." But the JB page doesn't have anything like that. The road types and routing server pages also have (IMO) nothing to rewrite regarding local streets, except for changing "street" to "local street" to reflect WME US English. They have sparing use of the road type template, which works well, and no repetition. The PLR part could use some rewriting, and Blaine gave an example of how to do it, which was essentially about replacing repetititons with pronouns. The most difficult part I can recall in avoiding ambiguity was when writing the guidance for multiple entry points. Instead of writing "place the entry point", I ended up writing "position the entry point" but was probably not consistent. We could also probably cut down on repetition in the rest of the places page.

So I'm wondering whether it would be more helpful, instead of debating theoretical concerns, to discuss how best to write actual, specific texts from our wiki or proposed for our wiki. If that sounds good, feel free to criticize my writing. It's all linked in my signature. I try to write my stuff according to the principles I have laid out here, but maybe it's not concise or clear enough. Or we can talk about your work or anything else that's in use or proposed.

Sent from my S9 using Tapatalk

This is a great example. Thanks DL! TBH the wording here has bothered me since I started wiki editing years ago. We could do what Blaine says and make an exception list. That would not look bad. Or we could write it like this:

The following roads are to be classified, at minimum, as {{major highway}} :

• Roads classified in FHWA's functional classification as principal arterials or other principal arterials.
• Roads classified in FHWA's functional classifications as other freeways and expressways, which do not meet the [[#Freeway|criteria for freewayof a controlled-access highway]].
  • This includes partially-limited-access roadways (or "expressways"). These are roads that have a lot of the characteristics of freeways, but also have occasional at-grade intersections with other roads.
  • Note: Every partially-limited-access roadway is a major highwayshould have this type; this does not mean that every major highwayroad of this type must be partially-limited-access.
  • Note: "expressway" is used as a shorthand term for partially-limited-access roads. This does not mean every road named "expressway" is a major highway in Waze.
  • Note: Some states refer to this class as other freeways. In these states, every road in this class is ashould have the freeway type.

Notice that the "criteria of a controlled-access highway" is how it's worded in the freeway section on this page, so wording would be more consistent. Ironically, the capitalization in the original version (Some states refer to this class as Other Freeways. In these states, every road in this class is a Freeway) combined capitalization of Waze terms and FC terms, and the ambiguity is still there. At least for me; I remember doing a double-take as a L1 editor when first reading this.

I know this is a double post, but I got to thinking about this subject again as I worked on my proposed new toll page today, which is based on PesachZ's toll roads page from four years ago. I found myself wondering about statements like

Under this method, only a segment (entrance/exit/highway) that actually traverses a tollbooth, collection/recording point or ticket dispenser is marked as toll. This means that all paths use a single toll segment per toll location, and they are only assessed with a single toll penalty, whether "avoid toll roads" is on or off.

Here we are using the word toll (just one word in this case!) to refer both to real-life roads where you drive on them and pay money, and to an attribute of a Waze road segment that has special effects on routing behavior. Are these unclear? I thought about highlighting or capitalizing the Waze meaning of toll. Here's how it would look capitalized:

Under this method, only a segment (entrance/exit/highway) that actually traverses a tollbooth, collection/recording point or ticket dispenser is marked as Toll. This means that all paths use a single Toll segment per toll location, and they are only assessed with a single Toll penalty, whether "avoid toll roads" is on or off.

Then I wondered if there was a way to avoid unnecessary ambiguity at least in the same sentence. I came up with this

Under this method, only a segment (entrance/exit/highway) that actually traverses a collection point, such as a tollbooth, recording gantry, transponder reader or ticket dispenser, is marked as toll. This means that all paths use a single toll segment per collection point, and they are only assessed with a single penalty, whether "avoid toll roads" is on or off.

This gives consistency. Seems clearer to me at least. So anyway, I thought the toll page was an interesting example of a word used simultaneously in real-life context and Waze context on the same place, and how context and word choice can influence the clarity. I'd love suggestions on how to better write it

Thanks. I like the "toll road parameters" idea. Since we were talking about just the toll road attribute and not the toll free restriction, I decided to change a few sentences to say that. So the sentence from above now reads

Under this method, only a segment (entrance/exit/highway) that actually traverses a collection point, such as a tollbooth, recording gantry, transponder reader or ticket dispenser, has the toll road attribute enabled.

I was attending a meeting of an international standards body last week, and I noticed that the technical specifications use a style convention of capitalizing defined terms; specifically, the first letter of each word of a defined term is capitalized.

The standards body, EMVCo does not have a published style guide. I asked the head of technology about it, and he confirmed that the style is deliberately done, as it is believed that readers of the standards are benefited by knowing that a term has a specific defined meaning within the standard vs. relying on the plain English meaning which may differ or lead to ambiguity.

For example, in the standard on Secure Remote Commerce, some of the defined terms could easily be confused with common nouns. (E.g., Cardholder, Digital Card, Dynamic Data, Payment Token). I personally find the capitalization convention quite helpful, even though a majority of the time it's clear from the context alone whether a defined term is being used.

I'm in support of adopting this capitalization practice for the US Wiki, as it would make apparent when defined terms are being used, coaxing the reader to interpret the sentence accordingly, and providing a nudge to go look up any term with which the reader is unfamiliar. Particularly for novice and intermediate editors who are zooming into a specific section of the wiki, it would be helpful to know that certain terms have specific meanings, and sometimes those specific meanings do not align with the English definitions (e.g., Private Road).

Kartografer wrote:Waze objects (segments, places, map comments, cities) are common nouns. Some attributes are proper nouns, like road types and place categories, because their names uniquely identify them. There aren't multiple private road types. There is one Private Road type.

Can you explain in more detail why private road is specific but area place is general?.

Kartografer, thanks very much for the carefully considered post. I recognize and appreciate the care and hard work involved.

I want to clarify that I consider this a discussion, not a proposal; thus the [DISCUSSION] flag in the title. My current goal is simply to understand the different perspectives better so I can make a more informed judgement.

So, although I recognize arguments having to do with practicalities — for example, whether current practice is really a problem, whether there are adequate linguistic workarounds even if it is, and whether the effort involved in adopting a different standard is more trouble than it's worth — here I would like to focus on the essentials.

Further, I would never argue that common nouns or noun phrases should be capitalized. I doubt anybody here would. We can surely stipulate full consensus on that.

The primary question in my mind is simply whether certain Waze-specific noun phrases really are common. This is why I asked what makes a private road a proper noun phrase, and an area place a common noun phrase. I do not yet follow your argument on that.

There seems to be agreement that the road types should be treated as proper noun phrases, that Major Highway, Private Road, Local Street, etc. should be capitalized. So let's start with those. What makes those proper nouns? Were it not for their special meaning in Waze, then obviously these would all be common noun phrases; outside of Waze world, nobody capitalizes Major Highways and Private Roads. So it is specifically their use in Waze that makes them proper noun phrases. What is that use, and why is it so different from other functional elements in Waze?

Kartografer wrote:Private Road is a single entity (a road type) that is applied to various road segments, such as segments that represent driveways or private roads. It has unique properties, like a high transition penalty and a gold color in WME.

Let me try to reword this this around Area Places:

Area Place is a single entity (a place type) that is applied to various map objects, such as map objects that represent parks or university campuses. It has unique properties, like multiple entry points and shading in the app display.

I am being honest, I don't understand why the former explanation is correct but the latter isn't. Where am I going wrong?

This has been a great discussion with some really thoughtful and knowledgeable people. At this point I'm only interested in pleasant brainstorming. I have already learned some things about style I did not know, and if this discussion may continue, I am sure I will learn more.

In a consensus-driven community, controversial decisions made with limited buy-in will always be fragile. A major participant in the previous discussion said that it "didn't seem to reach a strong consensus". It certainly appears that many editors are not yet comfortable with the earlier outcome. Who knows, perhaps this pleasant discussion will result in increasing the community buy-in for, and thus strengthen, the previous outcome!

Certainly, current practice, regardless of community support, should not lightly be overturned. We can have an enjoyable technical conversation about this topic now and leave the overturning for later, or never.

I hope readers are interested in continuing the discussion!

Is it not already broad consensus, and part of our current practice, to capitalize the road types? Minor Highway, Major Highway, Private Road, etc.?

If that is so, I still don't understand why that would be correct, but Area Place, Residential Point Place, Junction Box, etc. would not. What am I missing?

At an absolute minimum, our capitalization guidelines should be self-consistent, right?