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.

What kind of exceptions are we talking about? Do we have specific instances?

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.

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.

PesachZ wrote: by giving unique city ID, and only allowing you to use the one which is nearby, so you cant add the wrong one accidentally.

How would this work in the case of Raritan in Somerset County vs. Raritan in Hunterdon County, which are both technially close enough where numerous segments in either city could be added to either city without tripping the "too far away" error?

This needs a link to the city change request form, and perhaps a way to see, without being able to change, what cities have already had changes requested.

It should also be accompanied by a note requested that no city name should be changed on any segment unless you have access to edit the entire area impacted by that incorrect city name and the ability and time to update that whole area. If we start doing partial area updates to incorrect city names, we risk damaging route finding through the area, especially on more principal roads through it.

Again, we should strongly suggest the city name change form is used for any case where we need to either change all occurrences of "City X" to not-yet-existing "City Y" or merge all occurrences of "City X" into already-existing "City Y"

Shouldn't the guidance simply be that the primary city name for any given segment should reflect the city name that area is primarily known by? Most of the time it's municipal, though it can certainly also be an unincorporated town/area in a township or city. However, we do try to avoid postal city names outside of their corresponding municipalities, mainly to avoid map editor confusion because their polygons really represent zip codes and not cities.

The naming strategy information here is a little outdated. When we have overlapping municipality names with overlapping addresses and street names on different roads, we need to check if one is part of a CDP that is being used instead.

If you still have a conflict after that, you might want to consider what the post office does, since they require unique addresses per "postal city." Also, in most suburban neighborhoods, people are most likely to identify their mailing address as their navigational address as well.

I understand those issues but I also feel that the situation with CDPs is not different enough from New York or Pennsylvania for all 3 states to not be doing the same thing. I also think we're missing the point by focusing too much on the polygon created instead of names displayed. I don't think it says anywhere in Waze specifications that primary city polygons must be municipal polygons; that's just an assumption we made, maybe even just asa single state in a vacuum.

In PA's current policy, CDP names strictly supersede municipal names (no leadership conversation required) where defined. In NY, non-municipal names are discussed and may be allowed, based on whether the area is better known by that name vs. its municipal name (and not by how it's boundaries compare to alternatives). Remember, polygons don't display on the app or livemap, and they can only impact routing if their shapes are very, very irregular. Do we know of any such well-known names of areas, or even any such CDPs?

I would go as far to say that most - as in a vast majority of - CDP areas are far better known by their CDP name than their municipal name, especially if many of its postal address city names agree with the CDP name.

Im ok with either PA or NY approach, frankly. I also think that adopting one or the other will enable us to better pressure the 3rd to subscribe to it as well. But considering how often non-incorporated names are better-known than incorporated ones, I very strongly feel that, as long as only PCNs get displayed, a municipal-only policy for PCNs just plain puts incorrect, or at least sub-accurate information on the app and livemap.

Voludu, first - great to see you again. [emoji2]Second, the well-known name that is neither municipal nor CDP is much less common though it does happen in NJ and in NY. Parlin, NJ and Mountain Dale, NY both come to mind.

All very good points, Qwaletee, but I still think CDPs should be allowed as PCNs anywhere they are better known than at least municipal names, without discussion. I really want to avoid needing to have a discussion for every non-municipal name; there are far too many of them. For cases where a third name gets introduced to the mix, we may have to discuss, but hopefully there are much, much less of those.