[Talk-GB] Fw: Road name contradictions in the UK

Andy Townsend ajt1047 at gmail.com
Fri Mar 8 10:15:20 UTC 2019

On 07/03/2019 13:56, Gregory Marler wrote:
> 1) Can you elaborate on the source(s) of suspected road names?
> 2) It would helpful if each of us could look at your list in a more 
> localised aspect. Either including county would be more helpful, or at 
> least having latitude and longitude in separate columns makes it 
> easier to use in other tools usually.
> 3) There's some obvious reasons why some of those aren't in OSM just 
> by looking at the first 5.
> 3a) One was on a caravan park, so it might not have an official name 
> or even a sign (again I would like to question the source).
> 3b) A way was about 3 metres to connect one road to another, it's 
> debatable whether it should be named itself but could be fixed without 
> a survey.
> 3c) There are lots of abbreviated names in your spreadsheet, even 
> "Clos" which I presume is a strange shortening of "Close".
> A Maproulette challenge might tempt people to copy the names from your 
> spreadsheet (the legality and suitability of that is very unknown!).
+1 to all of that.  Without knowing the source of these names any 
spreadsheet containing "missing names" is going to be very 
problematical.  If a missing name isn't signed on the ground, then 
what?  If an unsigned name's "correct" (e.g. it's available from OS 
OpenData or another similarly admissible source) I'd typically add it 
and then add "name:signed=no" to indicate that it's not useful for 
giving directions.  In this case we've got a list of names which mostly 
probably won't be signed on the road (caravan parks, buildings, etc.)

OS Locator is/was a good source of those missing names, as shown in 
"Musical Chairs" here:


but as the OS have been playing "musical chairs" with their open data 
offerings it may be that there isn't a more recent open OS source (that 
example shows some missing new build roads).

Best Regards,


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list