kentsmith9 wrote:mapcat wrote:Riamus wrote:I think you misread 2a3. It does say to map any driveway that is named.
Perhaps Kent was saying that if a driveway has a street name, it is a street, not a driveway.
kentsmith9 wrote:mapcat wrote:Riamus wrote:Ok. Though I'd still say that it would be a private road, which would be the same mapping as a driveway since we don't have a driveway road type. If someone pays to get their driveway named, it doesn't make it a public street.
IMO if it has a name, it is not a driveway, so if it is private, call it a private road, and if it is public, call it a street. Just not a driveway.
I believe mapcat is saying that if a road has a name and is behind a gate or marked as private, it is not a driveway, but merely a private road. If it is named and publicly accessible it is not a driveway, but a street. However, since we don't have a driveway designator, I'm not sure this argument is important because it is either a street or private road.
kentsmith9 wrote:I think we all agree there are exceptions to every rule. If the city recognizes the name on a road and other maps recognize the name on the road, then I say we name it. Our point was if someone decided to name their driveway "Joe Rd", that is not a recognized name and we should not map the name.
kentsmith9 wrote:I cannot find the thread currently, but Alan and I found a parking lot where the main intersection leading into a big parking lot names the road leading into the parking lot. However that name is not present anywhere else inside the parking lot and no other names exist, so we agreed in that case we should not name that parking lot entrance since coming out of the parking lot a driver would never see that road name from any of the isles leading to the main entrance/exit road.
Also naming all the isles with the name of the parking lot entrance name would not make sense with all roads intersecting each other with the same name. Turn directions would not make sense for that case.
This is clearly different from your example above and we should identify the difference to prevent confusion.
Having trouble uploading images, but when you go here you can see on Street View there is "Bollinger Crossing" from the overhead signs in the intersection headed into the parking lot. That is the name of the shopping center, not the road itself.
https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=6&lon ... TTTFTTTTFT
Inside the parking lot there is no such street names. If we named just this segment from the street, then when inside the parking lot you would get a message to turn at "Bollinger Crossing" when no sign in the parking lot is actually labeled with that name.
I now see what Kent is saying and agree. It can hurt navigation to give entrance roads to large mall/shopping complexes the name of the mall and leave the rest of the parking lot roads unnamed. Internally when exiting the lot I get turn instructions that use the name of the next named segment in the route. Thus, where there are multiple exits it is more helpful to be hearing the name of road at the exit I should be working towards, rather than a mall name that does not distinguish between exits.
However, if there are actual road signs that call different roads different names at the entrances or within parking lots, I think those names should be mapped.
I disagree. If "Bollinger Crossing" is the name of the mall, and it's on a sign that looks like a street sign, the street should be named.
If you think it's confusing that it would continue to say "Bollinger Crossing", surely it would be far more confusing if it continued to say "San Ramon Valley Blvd" instead, which is what would happen otherwise.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users