[Talk-us] Directional suffixes on roads: yes or no?

[Brian Egge]

Yes, I realize this isn't the exact same thing, but divided roads also may
have directional suffixes. I.e, Westchester Avenue East.

https://goo.gl/maps/yfBXy

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 5:07 PM James Mast <rickmastfan67 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Brian, I think you're confused here on this subject.  We're talking about
> roads that have stuff like 'NW' [1] in the name on street signs.  Nothing
> about divided roads.
>
> -James
>
> [1] - http://goo.gl/maps/wB8IR
>
> ------------------------------
> From: brianegge at gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:32:54 +0000
> To: elliott.plack at gmail.com; burkejf3 at gmail.com; talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Directional suffixes on roads: yes or no?
>
>
> The FGDC doesn't make any reference to pre-directionals when used for a
> divided road (dual carriageway). The problem with these roads is addresses
> don't use the pre-directional, but road signs do. Here's one example:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/295032159#map=16/41.0291/-73.7359
>
> The address of the highlighted building is "333 Westchester Avenue". Along
> this divided street, the odd building numbers are on the south side and the
> even numbers are on the north.
>
> For divided highways, one may see a directional modifier on the signs, but
> on the map it's never included, or if it is included, is done through super
> relations. I.e., I-84 contains two relations, one is I-84 Eastbound and the
> other I-84 Westbound. The contains way's whose role is east/west, but are
> named I-84.
>
> For divided roads, it seems it's best to put the directional modifier in
> the relation's role and omit it from the name.
>
>
> On Mon Dec 01 2014 at 12:56:30 AM Elliott Plack <elliott.plack at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Jack,
>
> Good question. I come from a local government geographer perspective. I
> feel that the data should be as authoritative and official as possible with
> regard to naming. It's simple for a computer algorithm to abbreviate,
> ignore or omit information, but quite difficult to synthesize missing
> information.
>
> The directional suffix you refer to is officially called a post
> directional. The Federal Geographic Data Committee definition is, "A word
> following the street name that indicates the directional taken by the
> thoroughfare from an arbitrary starting point, or the sector where it is
> located." See section 1.7.2.6
> http://www.fgdc.gov/standards/projects/FGDC-standards-projects/street-address/05-11.2ndDraft.CompleteDoc.pdf
>
> When you say that most people don't refer to it as such, that can
> definitely pose a challenge to cartographers. My opinion is to use the full
> name with the post directional and let map data users (or humans) choose
> what to ignore.
>
> Kindly,
>
> Elliott
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 23:41 Jack Burke <burkejf3 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Howdy,
>
> I have a question about how much effort should be put into adding
> directional suffixes to road names.
>
> Many counties around Atlanta have adopted directional suffixes for roads,
> both in incorporated areas as well as outside city limits. Usually all
> areas in the county use the same system, with directions denoted NE, SE, NW
> and SW from some standard point, although some cities tend to ignore the
> suffixes. Also, signage is inconsistent--some street signs bear the suffix
> while others on the same street don't.
>
> In most cases, the suffix is immaterial, and most people don't use it
> anyway. Use of it or not won't affect directions most of the time, although
> I know of a few specific cases where knowing the suffix can be important in
> finding the right location (is your house 100 Concord Road Southeast or
> Southwest?).
>
> The majority of the Tiger data doesn't include the suffix.
>
> So, how much should I worry about the missing suffixes? Should they be
> included in the main name= tag? Or one of the other *name tags with the
> unsuffixed name in the name= tag.
>
> Because most people don't use the suffix, on some roads I've put the
> with-suffix name in the name= tag and the unsuffixed one in the short_name=
> tag, but I'm wondering if I should continue to bother.
>
> -jack
>
>
> --
> Typos courtesy of fancy auto-spell technology.
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20141201/337b14b6/attachment.html>