(Can business places be added now?) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<big>Never mind about this question. I missed the alerts at the top of the page saying to ignore the page because it is outdated.</big> | |||
The Ohio conventions come down hard against adding places for businesses, yet the available fields for places go beyond the recommended landmark restriction suggested on this page, with fields like Wifi and valet parking. Also, [[Places|the criteria for accepting a place on the general Places page]] is "Is the majority of information provided in the update correct?". Now that places have their own layer that can be turned off to avoid clutter, should the guidance in the Ohio article be updated? | The Ohio conventions come down hard against adding places for businesses, yet the available fields for places go beyond the recommended landmark restriction suggested on this page, with fields like Wifi and valet parking. Also, [[Places|the criteria for accepting a place on the general Places page]] is "Is the majority of information provided in the update correct?". Now that places have their own layer that can be turned off to avoid clutter, should the guidance in the Ohio article be updated? | ||
Latest revision as of 18:58, 24 December 2014
Never mind about this question. I missed the alerts at the top of the page saying to ignore the page because it is outdated.
The Ohio conventions come down hard against adding places for businesses, yet the available fields for places go beyond the recommended landmark restriction suggested on this page, with fields like Wifi and valet parking. Also, the criteria for accepting a place on the general Places page is "Is the majority of information provided in the update correct?". Now that places have their own layer that can be turned off to avoid clutter, should the guidance in the Ohio article be updated?