As an on and off Recent Changes Patroller; I view my job simply:

• Prevent Spam
• Prevent Vandalism
• Prevent Misinformation
• Ensure that any reliable source is cited for edits, to keep editors honest and informational.

Per Wikipedia's "Be Bold" guideline; I generally rollback things that I find to be not contributing...and I allow other editors to do the same..."Be Bold" back to me by challenging my decisions. 99% of people who aren't pedaling obvious Spam, Vandalism or Misinformation I will simply let be.

Less than 1% of my actions are "Be Bold" style interpretations. I usually stick to what I can reasonably know is just junk or incorrectly contributed.

So it boggles my mind that any sysops with years of experience on EnWiki are being that pedantic about Notability, Sources and "Original Research". Genuinely; I don't consider pointing a fact out about a specific map to be such research...it's a fact, and that fact can be backed by even more maps, going back in time. Roads and Highways may not be extremely exciting; but they definitely are important and DO in fact meet GN guidelines. Primary Sources themselves are fine too; genuinely you should need a damn good reason to challenge a source; be it primary or secondary.

At least a citation about how a primary source might not be found to be reliable.

It looks like as editors flee the ridiculous bureaucracy, they only make it worse to prevent more work from being created...which is counterproductive and makes people consider things like this or long-term wikibreaks. >_>