Voting and Rating

1.1 Any changes made by users are subject to voting by other community members or the administration. This measure is designed to ensure the quality of the provided information. 1.2 If a created edit accumulates 10 positive or negative votes, it is applied to the site or blocked accordingly.

2.1 During the review of edits, it is important to consider the user's level. If you are an experienced user, it is recommended to carefully explain errors to newcomers and provide specific recommendations for their correction. 2.2 Errors in edits are not a reason to immediately vote against:

1. 2.2.1 Instead, in the comments, ask the edit author to provide a confirming source or point out the error for correction (or correct it independently for level 3 editors).
2. 2.2.2 If the edit author does not respond or does not correct the error within 3 days, it is allowed to vote against.
3. 2.2.3 Unjustified voting for or against an edit may result in penalties from the administration.

2.3 If you decide to correct your blocked edit, inform the administration for its restoration. 2.4 Voting against an edit or demanding its addition is prohibited if, in the voter's opinion, insignificant changes have been made or not all data that could be specified is provided. If you have more information, you can add it yourself in a new route edit.

1. 2.4.1 Each editor contributes only the information they possess and is not obligated to have all the information about the route;
2. 2.4.2 For example, it is prohibited to vote against an edit if the author correctly changed the route type but did not update the outdated schedule.

3.1 Fabricated data (vandalism) – the edit contains a set of signs indicating the introduction of fabricated (non-existent in reality) data. For example:

1. 3.1.1 Unrealistic, absurd changes in the current and/or other edits by the user: extending an urban route to another city or country, etc.;
2. 3.1.2 A large number of questionable edits with recent registration on the site;
3. 3.1.3 Use of offensive language in edits or in the user's profile.

3.2 No data source to verify accuracy – the edit exhibits all the listed signs below:

1. 3.2.1 No source is provided to check specific changes made by the user;
2. 3.2.2 In the "Source of information" field or when answering a question in the comments, the edit author states that they cannot provide confirmation or ignores the question for 3 days;
3. 3.2.3 Independent verification yields no results;
4. 3.2.4 For some reason, the user cannot trust the edit author at face value (activity history, duration on the site, etc.).

3.3 Incorrect data (with evidence) – the edit author entered incorrect data, and there is evidence of this, which is provided:

1. 3.3.1 When choosing this option, the user must specify in the comments to the edit what exactly is incorrect and provide supporting evidence.

3.4 This route already exists in the directory – a route with the same number and characteristics already exists on the site. 3.5 Other – specify the reason using a comment.