Thanks. I don't believe you (qwaletee) and I disagree on interpretation. But the fact remains that we have had at least one editor who did indeed interpret the wiki differently.
This editor did a lot of great research to find the "theoretical" (i.e. unsigned) exit numbers associated with the forks at the end of freeways, at places where one freeway appeared to end but actually joined a shared alignment, and at places where one freeway designation ended and another began. Then he submitted many unlock/update requests to get these unsigned identifiers into the Waze instructions. His reading of the wiki suggested to him that this was desirable, or at the very least OK. When another editor complained that it made the driving instructions confusing (to him personally, as he drove one of these regions) he was told that's what the wiki asked for, so that's the way it is.
I don't feel my proposed changes take anything away from what you've said, and it doesn't sound like you're finding fault with the specific content. Granted, the wiki does make sense, the way it is currently written, to you and to me; but you and I are not the only ones reading it. Clearly others are taking home a different message. Clarifying it in the way I suggested can only improve new editors' understanding of current best practice, and what's not to like about that?
This editor did a lot of great research to find the "theoretical" (i.e. unsigned) exit numbers associated with the forks at the end of freeways, at places where one freeway appeared to end but actually joined a shared alignment, and at places where one freeway designation ended and another began. Then he submitted many unlock/update requests to get these unsigned identifiers into the Waze instructions. His reading of the wiki suggested to him that this was desirable, or at the very least OK. When another editor complained that it made the driving instructions confusing (to him personally, as he drove one of these regions) he was told that's what the wiki asked for, so that's the way it is.
I don't feel my proposed changes take anything away from what you've said, and it doesn't sound like you're finding fault with the specific content. Granted, the wiki does make sense, the way it is currently written, to you and to me; but you and I are not the only ones reading it. Clearly others are taking home a different message. Clarifying it in the way I suggested can only improve new editors' understanding of current best practice, and what's not to like about that?
Re: [Update] Road Name/USA