Alan, and I think some others, presented pictures of signs where the directional was closely associated with the address range. I agree with them that in those cases there is a strong implication that the directional is not necessarily part of the street name. Attached are some examples (only one attached now, others were too big) where I feel that implication is not present. Note that the directionals are no where near the address ranges, and in one case the directional is the same size as the rest of the street name. Also note that these are not streets where "N <name>" and "S <name>" run parallel to each other (i.e. the intersection test would suggest that the directionals be removed). For example, at some point N Wilson just becomes S Wilson. Also, local residents, businesses and governments sometime include those directionals when referring to those streets (but not necessarily all of the time, again, we all like to use short hand at times when communicating).
Kevin has sparked a very good debate on this subject. A number of you have convinced me that in some parts of the country TIGER has rather arbitrarily inserted directionals, and that in these cases they should be removed from the name tag. I still feel in other areas the directionals should remain. Thanks
<<attachment: W29th.jpg>>
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
