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 <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] > Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:32:54 +0000 > To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > > _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list > [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
