olestas wrote:We had an editor, who started cutting the road with bridge and adding segment named "bridge" there...
I actually did that twice in the last last week in my area. One was consistent with local usage, and was needed due to a confusion of streets joining on each side. The other was an "official" but unsigned bridge name. It was needed because otherwise, the bridge above and street below wold have shared a name, and likely got a few drivers lost
Otherwise, I agree, caling out bridges is overkill. Some drivers will complain if you don't, other drivers will complain if you do. Most will have no problem either way.
I've gotten an out of band request to clarify what I meant here. I am pointing out that there are some situations where you may want to change the naming of a bridge segment so that routing is clearer, but otherwise, it usually is not worth it. In my case, I had two such situations.
1) https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=6&lat ... s=63424675
Bridge is part of Greenpoint Ave, which spans the Newton Creek between Queens and Brooklyn. The official name of the bridge is J J Byrne Memorial Bridge, but it isn't signed (or at leats not very visibly), and noboyd calls it that -- they call it Greenpoint Ave or Greenpoint Ave Bridge. Segment was previously called Greenpoint Ave, which was OK by itself. The problem is that there was a Greenpoint Ave that only ran to the eastern bank before there was a bridge, and so it continues to exist, below the bridge on each side, and is still called Greenpoint Ave. This can cause hard to follow routing instructions, so I named the starting segment of the eastern side of the bridge with the official naming. Anyone coming form the preceding segments on that side will not be confused, because it is obviously a bridge (the roadway rises steeply), and there will be no confusion with the roadways to the side anymore, especially since I also renamed THOSE Greenpoint Ave Outer Road, a naming convention used in many places in Waze for NYC.
2) https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=6&lat ... s=33539612
The bridge is also officially named as I entered into Waze, and is also not signed. The adjacent segments make it confusing. Grand St and Metropolitan Ave come together in order to cross the bridge. The bridge itself is inline with Grand St, and Metropolitan dog-legs its way into a sport of concurrency with Grand over the bridge. Traffic to Grand in one direction is briefly diverted to Metropolitan, because Gran becomes one way to prevent multiple lane crossovers. To leave it without the word bridge in the name could cause confusion because of the twisty way the roads join. If you go through all the use cases for driving the bridge, it is best named with a unique name for the bridge segment.
So the above two cases point to sometimes using a name change when a stretch of road runs over a bridge. In both cases, it happens to follow official naming, which is almost irrelevant. I would have put bridge in there even if it was not the official name, to avoid confusing instructions to drivers.
But in most cases, this wouldn't be true. Unless the bridge segment is noticeably signed, there's no reason at all to change the name of the segments over the bridge, and even if it is signed, it may add no benefit.