Like I said earlier in this thread, don’t worry about postal searches, you will never stay ahead of them. Let Google worry about postal searches.
I think that is the only way the current cities model can actually be used.
Waze will have to change this in the future, but the future is not now.
Putting useful place names on the map, by whatever contorted means, is the best use we can make of the current cities layer.
I’m not sure I understand what you are proposing or the need for a change. The current model of using 1. The incorporated place name, 2. The Census designated place name, 3. The township name - in that order - seems to be working fine. Adding postal names to the map requires creating hundreds of additional city names and IMO clutters the map unnecessarily. Additionally, those names will undoubtedly begin to migrate beyond their borders extremely quick; we have enough problems containing city name boundaries as it is.
As far as routing is concerned, Jon addressed that earlier.
Postal names matter when you search by address, and you not only expect them to match when you search for an address, but also expect them to be displayed in the search results of an address search. Address-based searches are the most common type, so I don’t agree with any position that says we shouldn’t bother with them.
I also understand that when navigating, either by banner, by announcement, or just by map overlays, CDP names make more sense. Further, postal names and CDP names very often diverge in places like NJ, or even NY or PA. This is why we need a system that can not only match both but also display both.
As a State Manager, I don’t want to have to coordinate a mass statewide city name updating effort only to know any kind of immediate goal will be insufficient for what city names really need to be. I just don’t feel, or see why, the city names as they are now would be insufficient enough to need an immediate mass statewide overhaul without proper facility to correctly handle naming.
I don’t think there currently is any proper facility in Waze to handle city names.
And I agree that massive renaming would not make sense.
For example: a person might search for 403 Mountainview Dr, Chesterbrook, PA, which is well-understood to people, but just a large development, not a post office, municipality, or CDP. The correct municipality for that address is Tredyffrin Township, but the post office is Wayne, which is in a different county and is not a municipality or CDP, and so should not be mapped at all according to the PA state guidelines. It wouldn’t make sense to develop alt-city guidelines because we don’t have definitive answers from Waze on how alt-city figures into address searching now or in the future, so any effort to add alt names for the purposes of address searching could turn out to be a complete waste of time
On the other hand, as jondrush suggested, It might make sense to selectively add “map places” like Wayne to the map by using that city name as primary on a small number of segments at that map point place, because it can help wazers orient themselves, just as those labelled points on a paper map help people orient themselves.
I’d have to check, but I think we also have an exception for primary local usage. If the primary place name as used by locals is Chesterbrook, then we can allow that, and use the official name as an alt instead.
Primary local usage is based on a reliable local editor or interaction with multiple locals, or research of business listings.
Since we had some discussion on this in our SM Chat hangout and the question came up in the NJ Editors hangout, I’ve drafted revised language to the New Jersey/Cities and towns/Main wiki page. We can work on the formatting latter, but wanted to get the basics of what has been stated and possibly(?) agreed to.
Thoughts? Areas I’ve glossed over that could be improved?
I think this wording is better for newer editors. At least there is a order to check and someone to connect to.
Not sure this fits in to this topic, but how does an old name still remain on the city layer when it “seems” that everything has been changed? I get a number of UR’s from drivers complaining that West Paterson shows on the map. It was renamed Woodland Park a few years ago (before I started editing). I’m guessing that editors renamed the roads instead of getting the city renamed. (Reason: the area outline of Woodland Park follows the outer limits of the roads and not the actual boundary of the town.) In cases such as this, shouldn’t we be using the city renaming to get these changes as it would keep the real boundaries?
Would it be possible for towns that are exceptions to the standard names or CDP to be listed somewhere (Google sheet or inline) with a comment as to why this name is used?
Reason: After some time goes by people may forget or that editor may no longer be editing. This would provide a reference for the non-standard towns and why that name was used. Possibly have basic info (Town, County, Comment).
Hopefully, the list of non-standard names would not be that large to become unmanageable.
What kind of exceptions are we talking about? Do we have specific instances?
2 points, the general gist seems good.
- the two sections seem very redundant to me, and could easily be consolidated into one section and be much shorter and easier to grasp.
- with the mention of greater xx area at the bottom to bring to the SMs attention, I would add to also bring up any TOWN (2) as well for repair.
Thanks all for the feedback. I’ve modified the language to reduce the clutter and consolidate redundant points.
This avoids getting into the discussion of when to use CDPs or other locality names, and keeps the status quo as is unless something does need to be addressed and fixed. We also wouldn’t need to keep a catalog of approved names or exceptions as once an exception is approved it is now covered by point 1.
What has changed that permits duplicate names?
Testing that shows it works and doesn’t revert to XX (2). The issue with search if the same road names appear in both towns still exists, both results can show. But that is better than having only the wrong result show because one town has some form of a creative name which is not in common use by the residents.
Sent using Tapatalk for Android
Don’t you still get the “too far apart” error when trying to save?
not if we have a champ use the city form to get staff to start the first few segments in the area. Once there are segments nearby with the name, you can add more. We need staff to do it so we get the same name but unique CityIDs for both towns. This way in the database they are different cities, even though they have the same name.
No we don’t.
Sounds great everyone. I would also move that we eliminate any Twp or Township suffixes except where such a word is actually part of the town name (an example that comes to mind is Washington Township in Bergen County).
I’m not convinced that we need to maintain a township distinction, though, when a township borders a borough with the same name - for example, Chatham borough and Chatham township in Morris County, or Lebanon borough and Lebanon township in Hunterdon County, or Neptune city and Neptune township in Monmouth County. However, for the last one, I’m not sure the word city isn’t actually part of the town name, as in Neptune City; if it is, we should include it, but if it isn’t, I don’t see a reason it needs to be distinguished, on the map or in search results, from Neptune township.
I like this a lot. In my local knowledge, I’ve never referred to Chatham borough or township distinctively, and if naming has no real affect on search results (in that we can rely on google for exact matching), I’m all for simplifying.
In terms of Washington Township in Bergen, is this so because they use it in their postal address (Twp. of Washington), where as others in the state use a localized name (Washington Twp in Morris uses Long Valley)?
As for sourcing, I’d also like to use the NJ Tax map to verify names as we can see what they are incorporated as via the state. In the Neptune City example, it’s the Borough of Neptune City.
So for Washington Township, the word Township is actually part of the town name - both in postal addresses and how I’ve ever heard anyone refer to the place. Maybe it is to distinguish itself from the many other Washingtons around NJ, both present and former.
If the word city in Neptune City is actually part of the city name, we should absolutely include it. Other more obvious examples would be Jersey City or Atlantic City.