Suburb Naming Standards
Apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere, but I feel I've missed something.
I've been under the impression that the naming standard, was Street, (Suburb, City), Country, as per the wiki
Country is obvious. Since suburbs can cover a large areas, these are broken down into smaller areas, the correct term for it I can't recall now. For instance, I stay in Proteaville, which is an area within the Durbanville suburb, so in Waze the City field for my road is Proteaville, Cape Town.
For someone who knows I stay in Durbanville, searching for my street address in Waze won't return any Durbanville results, which is a concern I have with the current convention used in Cape Town, and that I've been using elsewhere when mapping new areas.
I know the megacity add an extra level of complexicity, but looking in Kempton Park this evening, I see a street labeled Aandblom Rd, Kempton Park, Ekurhuleni, Edleen, South Africa.
Now is is very different to my understanding of the naming standard, as here there are three entries in the City field, and in the reverse order. While I don't disagree with there being three fields, with the suburb being the additional field, why the reversal of the order?
Unfortunately my name is against most of these roads as the last editor, as I went around correcting all the suffixes last month.
Can anyone shed some light on the history of this standard, which in the Area, Suburb, City order makes perfect sense to me? But not the reverse.
I've been under the impression that the naming standard, was Street, (Suburb, City), Country, as per the wiki
Country is obvious. Since suburbs can cover a large areas, these are broken down into smaller areas, the correct term for it I can't recall now. For instance, I stay in Proteaville, which is an area within the Durbanville suburb, so in Waze the City field for my road is Proteaville, Cape Town.
For someone who knows I stay in Durbanville, searching for my street address in Waze won't return any Durbanville results, which is a concern I have with the current convention used in Cape Town, and that I've been using elsewhere when mapping new areas.
I know the megacity add an extra level of complexicity, but looking in Kempton Park this evening, I see a street labeled Aandblom Rd, Kempton Park, Ekurhuleni, Edleen, South Africa.
Now is is very different to my understanding of the naming standard, as here there are three entries in the City field, and in the reverse order. While I don't disagree with there being three fields, with the suburb being the additional field, why the reversal of the order?
Unfortunately my name is against most of these roads as the last editor, as I went around correcting all the suffixes last month.
Can anyone shed some light on the history of this standard, which in the Area, Suburb, City order makes perfect sense to me? But not the reverse.
Re: Suburb Naming Standards