[Talk-us] Fwd: Feature Proposal - RFC - Directional Prefix & Suffix Indication

Kevin Atkinson kevin at atkinson.dhs.org
Mon Aug 23 04:01:21 BST 2010


On Sun, 22 Aug 2010, Mike Thompson wrote:

> With the exception of SLC, other places in Utah that use a grid system
> and perhaps a few other cities that only a local could identify, I am
> opposed to your proposal.

I specifically said this decision should be made by locals.

> In most places I have lived or visited, the
> directional is an integral part of the name.  I concede that SLC (and
> the rest of Utah probably) is different.  After my initial objection
> to your SLC plan, I did further research, including checking the SLC
> GIS website, it it appears that you are correct in that case.

I also suggest you do some more research on other cites, start with
Columbus, OH and any other cities others on this list have indicate the 
directional prefixes should be removed.

> I also wouldn't put too much weight on what locals call the street in
> everyday conversation.  When speaking about the streets I travel to
> people, I use the shortest possible name that will be unambiguous in
> the given context.  So instead of saying "North Garfield Avenue", I
> simply say "Garfield" if I am speaking to someone that knows I always
> take this street in my daily travels. For example, "did you see that
> accident on Garfield on the drive in this morning?"  This does not
> mean that this is the official name.  On the other hand, if I was
> giving directions to an out of town guest, I would make sure I used
> the full name so their would be no chance of confusion.

You are taking that test too literately.  What I mean is will locals _ever_
use the directional prefix when giving street names.  We may say "500 
South" "5th South" or maybe even "5th South Street" (to avoid confusion 
with those not familiar with our system) but hardly every "East 500 South" 
or "West 500 South" except when giving an address.  If giving directions I 
will say "500 South" and never "East 500 South", the later will just cause 
confusion.

> A test that I have not heard mentioned here is whether the directional
> appears as part of the building/house number on the sides of buildings
> (e.g 1705 W).  If it does, we know for sure that it is part of the
> building number, and not the street name and it can safely be removed
> from the street name.

That will hardly every apply.

> I don't agree with the unique intersection test.  This works in SLC
> because the combination of directional suffix of the street you are
> on, with the direction suffix of any cross street will tell you what
> quadrant you are in within the city (not to mention that the numeric
> name will tell you exactly what block you are on).  Consider a city
> that is not as well organized street wise.  The names of the cross
> streets are in no particular order. You have a printed map based on
> OSM data of the location you want to go to, but the OSM data does not
> contain the directionals because there are no streets with the same
> name that intersect both "N Main" and "S Main"  You are driving along.
> None of the cross streets match your map, but you figure you just
> haven't gone far enough.  You do notice that in small print the street
> signs have directionals, but since it is not on your map, you figure
> it is inconsequential.  Could be a very frustrating experience.

Again you are taking that test too literally.  I mean, in general, for 
_any_ street.  This test will fail in Washington DC and other places where 
the directionals are really needed.  Can you please give me a city where 
this test will _pass_ yet you think the directionals should be kept. 
Also why do you think they should be kept.

I will clarify my tests.

>
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Kevin Atkinson <kevin at atkinson.dhs.org> wrote:
>> FYI:
>>
>> I didn't get any comments from the talk-us mailing this week.  So I assume
>> either everyone agrees with me, or is sick of the subject :)
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:39:45 -0600 (MDT)
>> From: Kevin Atkinson <kevin at atkinson.dhs.org>
>> Reply-To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>> <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>> To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> Subject: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Directional Prefix & Suffix
>> Indication
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Directional_Prefix_%26_Suffix_Indication
>>
>> Tags to mark directionals which are more part of an address than the street
>> name.
>>
>> Since this has been discusses extensivly on the talk-us page, I might start
>> the voting process early if I don't get any feedback this week.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>



More information about the Talk-us mailing list