I've always ceased using the city name at the official city boundary (for road naming, not places). Postal addresses in some states may always use the nearest incorporated town with a US postal office, which in some cases can be dozens of miles away. I'd find it a bit silly to list those far-away streets as being part of the city, as that'd be a huge smudge on the map. Places though, I give the city name, as that's what's needed in a search.

It may be helpful to discuss what impacts the city name on the street has:

1) The floating city name in the mobile app as your approach
2) Uniquely identifying a point when doing an address-based search (since the same road name can be used in multiple cities within a state)
3) Other impacts?...

For #2, I suppose there could be rural conflicts if generic road names exist such as "County Road 3". I'm not sure how we best address that without having cities that are potentially huge compared to their functional urban boundaries.

A good comparison to the Belgrade example would be Chalco, NE. For tax purposes, it is not part of Omaha, NE. For USPS addressing, it is. NE Wazers have chosen to name the segments with Chalco as that is how the residents identify (and are census-recognized as such), and to create the distinct city name appearance in the app.

If the Belgrade suburb is taxed as Belgrade, identifies as Belgrade and no other name, is probably provided utility services as Belgrade (due to taxation), then functionally it is Belgrade, right?

Related question would be how to handle unincorporated towns. No City, nearest incorporated city, or use their local name?

Imagine 2 neighboring mostly rural counties where all the county highways are named CR-1, CR-2, CR-3, CR-A, CR-B, CR-C. However since they're county names, when you travel east from county #1 into county #2, you could be on a road that suddenly changes name from CR-2 to CR-C. I.e. no continuity of names state-wide.

Now, is the address "142 CR-C, No City, MT" in County #1 or #2? We don't have any solution for this that I'm aware of, except that the Wazer can make a decision based on distance to the stop point when looking at search results. This is a real situation for many counties in Nebraska. I haven't scoured rural MT counties yet, but I wouldn't be surprised to find the same thing.

If we shift from rural to unnamed suburbs, we could get the same thing. "123 Periwinkle Dr, No City, MT" might be a real address just outside the city limits of Belgrade. But it might also be a valid address outside the city limits of Helena.

As I type all this, I'm not sure there are any good and clean rules to go by. This might be another instance of Waze Art, where the artist (map editor) makes the call, likely due to local knowledge. Chalco, NE gets its own name instead of Omaha, NE because it's a full city, the residents call it Chalco, it's just lacking USPS designation. The "suburb" of Belgrade with no name? If locals consider it part of Belgrade, I'd personally tag the roads Belgrade. I know small clusters of homes mere blocks from the Lincoln, NE city limit that are proud to not be Lincoln. So, they are No City

I did some significant reading on this today, scouring the forums and State/Region wiki pages. Here are my findings (There's a TL;DR at the very end if not interested in walking through the logic and tests):

• City Name usage decisions are left to the State or Region Managers. There is no country-wide standard.
• What works for one state may be terrible for another, based on history, local conventions, etc.
• Postal service designations are frequently not the chosen option. The postal service itself maintains an official city for an address, but also potentially one or more "vanity" cities for that address to handle common usages.
• A regional or state standard should be established and clear so that all editors are consistent.

Examples:

• In New Jersey, every single segment has a city name entry. In order of preference: CDP (census designated place, if the area is commonly known by it), then city/town/village, then township. https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/New_Jersey#Cities_and_towns
• In the Southeast region, something a little different is used. Notably, roads outside the official limits of an incorporated municipality that are also not part of a CDP are "No City". https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/USA/Southeast/City_Field

Thus, we should come to a consensus for what works best for Montana (unless AlanOfTheBerg already has a ruling). I did not find a Northwest region standard.

Belgrade is a great example to use for discussion as it's a complex scenario. If we can establish rules that solve Belgrade, we should have a standard that works everywhere else.

• The official city limits are small, with a considerably larger official urban boundary: http://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/WebData/ext ... LGRADE.PDF
• The city limit signs (such as "Entering Belgrade") occur at the City Boundary, not the urban one.
• Cadastral and the Gallatin county records use "Belgrade" as the "property address" for many parcels that fall outside the city boundary but within the urban one.
• Those parcels have no other CDP.
• Those parcels are taxed by Belgrade? (can I get a confirmation on this? I haven't found anything official yet, and there's a statement by Belgrade that some of these developed areas aren't paying "their just and equal share".)

My current line of thinking is that the only (Waze) reason to extend city names past the city boundary to the urban boundary would be to improve navigation. With that in mind, I tested "61 North Shore Drive" as it was the first non-city conflict I found (and finding a conflict was easy, it was only the second address I tried). There's an urban result in the greater Belgrade area, a rural hit near Thompson Falls, and also hits in other states. In WME, LiveMap, and the Android app, I had no problems identifying the destination I wanted. Thus, "No City" did not pose a navigation problem.

Therefore, by keeping the city name usage tight to the official city limits, we preserve accuracy of the various city displays, at no apparent sacrifice to Wazing. Again, this recommendation is specific to Montana, not necessarily proposed guidance for other states.

As far as CDPs go, I would recommend they are used if they are the commonly used name for that area. If the CDP is not locally used, then use the city name if the segment is within city limits, otherwise No City.

Thoughts?

TL;DR: Propose to keep city name usage to within official city limits. No apparent detrimental effect to suburban or rural navigation. Use CDP name (regardless of city limits) if it's commonly-used locally. Otherwise "No City".

Kinematic wrote:Big problems with Turah though, it's overlay is close to a mile NW of the actual city. This is where CDP can cause a problem. The only map I cold find is from Maptechnica. With towns like this what is your proposal? The city boundary currently on WME doesn't match up with either of the two.

My understanding is that if we clear out all the "smudge" segment city names that are in the wrong spots, and have them correctly set on the correct segments, then within a few map update cycles the WME cities layer should update correctly. In extreme cases, such as city renames or deletes, we may need to fill out the form to have Waze update the DB manually. I had to do that with a "St Helena" to "St. Helena" rename. However, for Turah, initial searches show that as just an unincorporated community, not a full CDP?

Kinematic wrote:

herrchin wrote:Propose to keep city name usage to within official city limits. No apparent detrimental effect to suburban or rural navigation. Use CDP name (regardless of city limits) if it's commonly-used locally. Otherwise "No City".

You're saying for Traffic locks and Dirt Roads we use the City name for "Street Name" instead of leaving the field empty? If so what is the benefit of inputting the name and how does it benefit routing? Obviously if they are within the city boundary and have a street named they will be labeled as such. If we are putting segments as DR inside of a city we have to consider whether or not they are navigable by a low profile vehicle. Is it detrimental to the overall navigation for that DR to be mapped at all, and is it beneficial. Just because it's there doesn't mean it needs to be mapped. A good way to find this is by turning on GPS layer. ( Still that is inconsistent depending on data coverage in certain areas. )

I think there was a miscommunication, as I'm only ever talking about what is used in the city field? Nothing about street name.

I have a proposed Wiki amendment per our discussion:

https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/User:Herrchi ... _and_towns

I also added an additional state-wide resource to the wiki yesterday, the "Road Log", as I was seeing conflicting information for some secondary highways in the various resources (city/county maps, interactive GIS, Cadastral)

When it gives a technical lot description as an endpoint, Cadastral is really useful to nail down exactly where that is.

PhoenixofMT wrote:Thanks! I've used a similar map source to clean up some smudging around Bozeman. Sometimes it feels like I'm being excessively technical when editing large neighborhoods that probably consider themselves part of a nearby town with a surprisingly small sphere of influence.

I would be apt to say that this sphere would be increased in this case. If you go have a look on MT Cadastral on the said segments selected you will find that they are labeled with Belgrade for the city. With that being said the city it's self is collecting a tax from the addresses in this subdivision. I've found that if they are not within this sphere, they will have a P.O Box for the listed address.

herrchin wrote:Postal addresses in some states may always use the nearest incorporated town with a US postal office, which in some cases can be dozens of miles away. I'd find it a bit silly to list those far-away streets as being part of the city, as that'd be a huge smudge on the map. Places though, I give the city name, as that's what's needed in a search.

I agree pertaining to places.

herrchin wrote:1) The floating city name in the mobile app as your approach

Unfortunately at this time iOS doesn't show the city boundary.

herrchin wrote:2) Uniquely identifying a point when doing an address-based search (since the same road name can be used in multiple cities within a state)
For #2, I suppose there could be rural conflicts if generic road names exist such as "County Road 3". I'm not sure how we best address that without having cities that are potentially huge compared to their functional urban boundaries.

Sorry but I'm not sure I completely understand this example. Even if the address can be navigated to w/o a city name their is no need to add it. Am I close??

herrchin wrote: If the Belgrade suburb is taxed as Belgrade, identifies as Belgrade and no other name, is probably provided utility services as Belgrade (due to taxation), then functionally it is Belgrade, right?

It's an excellent point to bring up . I suppose the urban boundary electrical power is supplied by the city , additionally they have a USPS by the city . I would likely assume that they run off of a well or even retrieve water from the nearby municipal water tower . That then brings up several other factors .
1.) Can the address be navigated to w/o a city name?
2.) How are we to distinguish all of this?
3.) In the event that we leave segments within the urban boundaries with out a city name and they cannot be navigated to with out a city name do we leave them as is and manage just user request issues that could occur or include the city name ?
I'm a big supporter for including city names within urban boundaries however am also open to suggestions .

herrchin wrote:Related question would be how to handle unincorporated towns. No City, nearest incorporated city, or use their local name?

My opinion would be to handle them with no city. Again open to suggestions.

herrchin wrote: [*]A regional or state standard should be established and clear so that all editors are consistent.[/list]

I completely agree on this point. There needs to be some clear definition as to where city name stops on segments.

herrchin wrote:Examples:

• In New Jersey, every single segment has a city name entry. In order of preference: CDP (census designated place, if the area is commonly known by it), then city/town/village, then township. https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/New_Jersey#Cities_and_towns

A good example if or cities were stacked together. As you know you can drive hours just to get to the next town. I feel that this example doesn't apply.

herrchin wrote:[*]In the Southeast region, something a little different is used. Notably, roads outside the official limits of an incorporated municipality that are also not part of a CDP are "No City". https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/USA/Southeast/City_Field[/list]

A far better option in my opinion.

herrchin wrote:Belgrade is a great example to use for discussion as it's a complex scenario. If we can establish rules that solve Belgrade, we should have a standard that works everywhere else.
Those parcels are taxed by Belgrade? (can I get a confirmation on this? I haven't found anything official yet, and there's a statement by Belgrade that some of these developed areas aren't paying "their just and equal share".)

I lived there for a couple of years attending MSU and it was under my assumption that they were being taxed from the city. Apologies for the misguidance.

herrchin wrote:Therefore, by keeping the city name usage tight to the official city limits, we preserve accuracy of the various city displays, at no apparent sacrifice to Wazing. Again, this recommendation is specific to Montana, not necessarily proposed guidance for other states.

As far as CDPs go, I would recommend they are used if they are the commonly used name for that area. If the CDP is not locally used, then use the city name if the segment is within city limits, otherwise No City.

After doing some thinking and looking things up on the interweb this points out to be a logical solution. I can at times be stubborn in my own thoughts but with a little time, thinking and looking over the best solution I usually come around. So with the consensus from the other editors, primarily PhoneixofMT I also believe that this is the plausible option to go with. Keeping the names within the boundaries of the city limits.

Note: I created a couple of overlay maps for CDP purposes. One for Belgrade and one for a small town called Turah. The Belgrade overlay lays perfectly over the city boundaries. Big problems with Turah though, it's overlay is close to a mile NW of the actual city. This is where CDP can cause a problem. The only map I cold find is from Maptechnica. With towns like this what is your proposal? The city boundary currently on WME doesn't match up with either of the two.

herrchin wrote:TL;DR: Propose to keep city name usage to within official city limits. No apparent detrimental effect to suburban or rural navigation. Use CDP name (regardless of city limits) if it's commonly-used locally. Otherwise "No City".

You're saying for Traffic locks and Dirt Roads we use the City name for "Street Name" instead of leaving the field empty? If so what is the benefit of inputting the name and how does it benefit routing? Obviously if they are within the city boundary and have a street named they will be labeled as such. If we are putting segments as DR inside of a city we have to consider whether or not they are navigable by a low profile vehicle. Is it detrimental to the overall navigation for that DR to be mapped at all, and is it beneficial. Just because it's there doesn't mean it needs to be mapped. A good way to find this is by turning on GPS layer. ( Still that is inconsistent depending on data coverage in certain areas. )

Attachment: In order to use them you have to have WME Geometries script installed. Go to Areas inside WME > Scroll to the bottom > add file.

herrchin wrote: My understanding is that if we clear out all the "smudge" segment city names that are in the wrong spots, and have them correctly set on the correct segments, then within a few map update cycles the WME cities layer should update correctly. In extreme cases, such as city renames or deletes, we may need to fill out the form to have Waze update the DB manually. I had to do that with a "St Helena" to "St. Helena" rename. However, for Turah, initial searches show that as just an unincorporated community, not a full CDP?

That's correct line of approach. With Turah they have a CDP which was activated in March of 2010. To clarify the boundaries we would then us Maptechnica.

herrchin wrote:I think there was a miscommunication, as I'm only ever talking about what is used in the city field? Nothing about street name.

I see that is correct with the assumption with "no name" on city outside boundaries.