I agree that, in a global sense, CDP boundaries are arbitrary in the same way FC is arbitrary. However, as strictly applies to us in Waze world, we must always be able to make exceptions because neither CDP boundaries nor FC were created by the government specifically to serve Waze's needs.

For example, we already fuss with FC in certain situations to ensure pruning continuity. Pruning continuity is more important to us than 100% adherence to an external standard. And (in California at least) government FC has occasional errors that we need the flexibility to deal with.

So likewise with CDP boundaries, I don't see what absolute adherence to them buys us, other than (like FC) being able to defend them should someone accuse us of being arbitrary. Which is valuable, for sure. But if we adjust CDP boundaries by a few segments here or there I don't think the risk of that is anywhere near what it is for routing/FC.

Anyway, that being said, I completely agree that guidance should not appear to encourage the entire editor corps to "make things up" because that can lead to other problems. I'm completely fine with Kartographer's suggestions and would propose implementing them verbatim after enough time has passed for any additional comment.

sketch wrote:Other unincorporated communities (without CDP or USPS name) do exist but are typically rather hard to nail down with borders or boundaries, but local exceptions can be used in cases where an unincorporated community can be reasonably defined.

Could we go so far, at a national level, as to say that a USPS name is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for mapping a city using segments' primary name field?

Some CDPs do not have USPS names. For example, the University of California at Davis has its own CDP separate from the town of Davis. However, all the mailing addresses within the University use Davis as the city. Unlike the fairly unique example of Stanford, California, the University does not think it is located in the "City of UC Davis", the dedicated CDP notwithstanding.

Allowing city names uncorroborated by USPS seems perilously close to mapping neighborhoods, which it's been my understanding we don't do at the present time.

We can do this at a state level of course, but if there might be national agreement on that, better still.

You've clearly been working a lot on this topic, thanks for the detailed thoughts!

To be clear, my thinking was not that a city name must be a primary USPS name to be eligible, but that it simply be corroborated by USPS. USPS is able to recognize/support different city names for the same zip code; that's good enough for me.

So, using the USPS tool for looking up zip code given city and state, I tried some of the names you listed. Results:

HARAHAN LA 70123
RIVER RIDGE LA 70123
ELMWOOD LA 70123

(The result for Paincourtville was a bit funny, but it was there:)
PAINCOURTVILLE LA 70391
This ZIP Code™ used for a specific PO BOX

BELLE ROSE LA 70341
NAPOLEONVILLE LA 70390

(For "Timberlane" USPS spit back "Timberlake" -- different town?)
TIMBERLAKE LA 71485

(Three results for Gretna)
GRETNA LA 70053
GRETNA LA 70054
This ZIP Code™ used for a specific PO BOX
GRETNA LA 70056

With the exception of Timberlane, the USPS recognized and was willing to handle all the names you mentioned. So all of them except Timberlane would pass my proposed necessary-but-not-sufficient test for a valid city name. From what you said it sounds like Timberlane is kind of on the hairy edge of being a neighborhood?

p.s. I'm definitely not proposing using anything from the USPS to determine boundaries! My proposal regarding USPS was just as a verification step for city names.

The zip code finder I linked previously spits out:

FINNEYTOWN OH 45224
FINNEYTOWN OH 45231

So the USPS corroborates the town name. Under my suggestion, this would mean that the name Finneytown could not be ruled out based on USPS data alone but perhaps there could be other reasons to disallow it on the Waze map.

How does the USPS discourage the use of the name Finneytown? I'm wondering how the USPS stance manifests. The USPS town-to-zip-code finder website isn't displaying anything that looks like discouragement.

One example I'm familiar with is the Santa Barbara airport property. The Santa Barbara airport is legally and formally part of the incorporated city of Santa Barbara, even though it shares no land connection with the rest of Santa Barbara (long story). Meanwhile, its zip code is that of the adjacent town, Goleta, CA 93117. You could say that Goleta "owns" that zip code, but in reality the USPS happily recognizes Santa Barbara, CA 93117. I've never heard anyone say that the USPS doesn't want people using the city name Santa Barbara for things going to 93117, at least not to the airport.

sketch wrote:As I understand it you're saying "you can use the CDP name, with the CDP's boundaries, as long as somewhere (I mean, somewhere in or near the CDP, whether or not there are any associated routes or boundaries), the USPS says it's an acceptable city name. Again, I understand, I just don't agree based on the examples I've come across so far.

Yes, that's my thinking. However, Kartografer's additional USPS info has made me question the utility of depending on the USPS. One of their websites says "oh yes, we recognize this name" while another of their websites says "we recognize the name but you shouldn't use it" without saying why.

Meanwhile USPS mail delivery at my office has been gradually declining to third-world quality, with parcel locker keys regularly going missing and taking several years (!!!) to be replaced, mail frequently misdelivered to other offices, and boxes "delivered" by being left in public areas. So I'm not a huge fan of the USPS at the moment. If there are good counterexamples of towns the Waze map should show that the USPS doesn't know anything about I'm not going to push for it.

I was simply hoping to find some reliable and independent means of distinguishing a neighborhood from a bona fide populated place worthy of display. As others said earlier in this thread with regards to CDP and FC, independent validation is generally much better than our sticking our fingers in the air and saying yeah or nah. CDPs have shown themselves to be inadequate for this purpose in my experience. The search continues, I guess...

sketch wrote:One thing I did worry about is the way that search works for CDPs that are thought of more as neighborhood names than as city names. But my worries were allayed when I tested it myself. Timberlane (pop. 10,243) is a CDP that is often thought of as a neighborhood of Gretna (pop. 17,736; parish seat of Jefferson Parish), as it is "Gretna" per the USPS. "Timberlane" is a name I've heard many times before, so I decided to see what would happen if I changed the primary name of all the streets in Timberlane to Timberlane, and ensured the alt name Gretna was present. Well, searching for an address in Timberlane with Gretna as the city name, you'd never know Timberlane was there at all. You get "400 Bellemeade Dr, Gretna" as your search result as if that's the only name. Meanwhile, you get the useful "Timberlane" labels on the map and in road reports.

Sketch — I just looked at this location (you mean 400 Bellemeade Blvd, not 400 Bellemeade Dr, right?). There do not appear to be House Numbers for that street on the Waze map. Using the app to search for 400 Bellemeade does return Gretna, but isn't that because it's getting the the pin from Google, which returns Gretna? Would the Waze app search switch to Timberlane if the HN were enabled?

[EDIT: Link to Bellemeade Blvd, Gretna, LA]

Ah, OK. So, I duplicated your results! The app says Gretna in the initial search screen, in the destination info pane, and in the routing instructions (after a 2033-mile drive on I-10 E). But now I'm bewildered as to why, when Timberlane has been assigned as that location's primary city. It means Waze must be deciding to ignore the primary city in favor of other data.

Do we know why this is happening and where those "other data" are that Waze is using? Google? If Waze ignores the primary city under some circumstances and for some purposes I'd have to reframe my thinking about this.

Kartografer wrote: Back to DL's amended proposal:

DwarfLord wrote: Could we go so far, at a national level, as to say that a USPS name is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for mapping a city using segments' primary name field?

By USPS name, you don't mean existence as a preferred or other recognized name for a ZIP code but rather simply whether putting the city and state into the ZIP code finder by city and state tool spits out a result?

Correct. The idea was that, when faced with the question of whether it's a "neighborhood" or a "bona fide city", a necessary (but not sufficient!) condition would be if USPS simply recognizes the name in any context, even a deprecated context. If USPS gives no results for the name at all, that would rule it out for use in the primary name field (i.e. it would be a neighborhood). If USPS did recognize the name, that would not be the end of the decision tree; one would then move on to whatever other criteria are applicable.

Kartografer wrote:@DL, it seems like with Timberlane and Gretna, Google search is converting Timberlane into Gretna as the preferred address, then passing that over to Waze.

Indeed, that would be my first take, and if I'm not mistaken sketch's as well. One question is whether Waze is doing things that way intentionally or whether it is a byproduct of some other decision that could be revisited in the future, with consequent changes to preferred address formation.

Kartografer wrote:[...]I can get behind using incorporation or USPS recognition as a minimum standard, at least for my state.

That would work great for me too. I love it when we can forge national agreement rather than splintering guidance. But as you say things are so different from state to state, and some experienced editors are saying that there are times when it's useful to map as a city an area most folks agree is a neighborhood.

I have no idea where to draw the line. In fact I have no idea if the reasons behind the original prohibition against mapping neighborhoods (which was already in place when I started editing over 5 years ago) are even valid any more.

I started this thread specifically because Waze had mapped "UC Davis" as a city. While driving I saw it displayed prominently on the app, right next to "Davis" in equally large letters. I said to myself "that's ridiculous, UC Davis is a university, it deserves and already has an Area Place, but the city is Davis". I brought it up in Discord, and a local editor pointed to guidance that said the city should match the Waze city polygon. Thus my original post.

So, whatever we come up with as justification for a city, I just want to be sure "UC Davis" won't qualify