City conflict naming update

Moderator: Unholy

Re: City conflict naming update

Postby russblau » Mon Mar 02, 2015 2:29 pm

CBenson wrote:I'm saying that the census data was in fact the basemap data. Thus in some areas the census naming remains the de facto default naming.


Specifically, it was 2000 Census data. CDP names and boundaries can and frequently do change with each Census. Municipality boundaries can change, too, although this is less frequent.
russblau
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 1188
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:36 pm
Has thanked: 168 times
Been thanked: 489 times

Re: City conflict naming update

Postby ialangford » Sun Mar 01, 2015 11:29 pm

Ah ok. So the census maps are still what are largely used in most of the south and west.
ialangford
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Columbia, SC
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: City conflict naming update

Postby CBenson » Sun Mar 01, 2015 3:24 pm

I'm saying that the census data was in fact the basemap data. Thus in some areas the census naming remains the de facto default naming. In areas where there has extensive editing to use place names not initially imported (such as township names) this de facto default condition may no longer remain.
CBenson
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 10330
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1069 times
Been thanked: 2355 times

Re: City conflict naming update

Postby ialangford » Sat Feb 28, 2015 11:48 pm

I would also note that the census data (with the CDPs) was the base map data in waze. I understand that the imported census map does not include Towns in the New England states, New York, and Wisconsin; Boroughs in New York; or townships as these are considered as minor civil divisions rather than places. In regions that don't include these features the census name structure may remain the basic underlying name structure. In such regions, the census names are the default and should be changed when there is agreement among the local editors that the name is not useful on the waze map or that there is another name that is useful on the waze map.


I'm confused what you are saying here. Are you saying that the census map should be the basis in New England/New York/Wisconsin? Or everywhere else?
ialangford
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Columbia, SC
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: City conflict naming update

Postby CBenson » Sat Feb 28, 2015 12:15 pm

I am in general agreement with the above. I unwilling to concede:
PhantomSoul wrote:[*] Postal Names seem to be out, because any given "block" of any road could (and very often does) interchangeably support multiple city names and/or multiple spelling variations of them. Waze simply does not have the facility to correctly handle this - nor do we have the ability to quantify an obvious most-likely-to-be-used name/variant, so we have to assume all such searches would just end up being forwarded to Google anyway.

Is not at all that I am a proponent of using the Postal Names. But the search capability in waze seem to be in continual state of flux. I'm not sure that we have (or will have) any less ability to handle variants than Google will. The problem is of course that we aren't getting much guidance from waze regarding the changes they continually seem to be making to the search functions. This makes it almost impossible to write these guidelines.

I would also note that the census data (with the CDPs) was the base map data in waze. I understand that the imported census map does not include Towns in the New England states, New York, and Wisconsin; Boroughs in New York; or townships as these are considered as minor civil divisions rather than places. In regions that don't include these features the census name structure may remain the basic underlying name structure. In such regions, the census names are the default and should be changed when there is agreement among the local editors that the name is not useful on the waze map or that there is another name that is useful on the waze map.
CBenson
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 10330
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1069 times
Been thanked: 2355 times

Re: City conflict naming update

Postby PhantomSoul » Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:22 am

Ok, so it's been a few days since I've been able to check this thread, and upon reviewing it, it seems pretty clear that the following holds for city naming:
  • Strict adherence to incorporated (municipal) names is not sufficient, particularly in the northeastern states where townships often have non-self-incorporated towns (or hamlets) within them with completely different names that those areas are far-better known by.
  • Postal Names seem to be out, because any given "block" of any road could (and very often does) interchangeably support multiple city names and/or multiple spelling variations of them. Waze simply does not have the facility to correctly handle this - nor do we have the ability to quantify an obvious most-likely-to-be-used name/variant, so we have to assume all such searches would just end up being forwarded to Google anyway.
  • CDPs apparently can be (though not always) assigned for factors other than colloquial names of areas, and as a result appear to not be an eligible end-all-be-all. However, because they frequently do reflect colloquial names of areas, they should be considered for the areas they represent, and then evaluated for whether a particular CDP name adequately reflects what the area is known by.

I still don't feel comfortable leaving city naming at the subjective levels it is now, lest we end up having endless "pork roll/taylor ham" debates on what to name half the rural and semi-rural areas of many states. But since the topic sounds like it actually might be subjective (shivers), maybe we can outline how to go about making a decision about it?

For starters, maybe we could point out some ways to tell an existing city name may be incorrect:
  • The No City box is checked in a state that is comprehensively incorporated with townships
  • The primary city name is a Greater ... Area name.
  • A UR claims that an unexpected city name appeared on the map overlay, or an expected city name was omitted, despite plenty of space to render it.
  • An editor brings to appropriate community attention that an area has the wrong city name.
  • State or local GIS maps suggest a different name for an area than is currently used in primary city name.

Naturally, to go along with that list, maybe we can point out some ways to go about finding out what an area is actually called:
  • When there's no city name or a Greater ... Area name, have a look around the larger region of the map. Chances are that area shares the same name as another nearby area. In NJ, for example, this happens a lot when a township has the same name as a neighboring boro (e.g. Chatham (boro) vs. Chatham (township)). In such cases, do the 2 municipalities border each other? If so, do people commonly distinguish the boro from the township or vice versa? If so, we may need to disambiguate the township with like a Twp suffix. If not, we may just be able to call both areas the same name.
  • What do state or local GIS maps say the name of the area is? Many non-self-incorporated towns and hamlets do appear on GIS maps and can (but, again, not always) be an indicator of what an area goes by.
  • If still in doubt or under contest, ask a local AM; after all, no one knows colloquialisms better than a local. WME provides a complete layer to show all AMs in any area. Send out a PM with a permalink and ask what the area in question is known as. After all, isn't this part of what AMs are for? If you can't tell which of the AMs in an area are actually local, you can always reach out to the state's SMs and ask if they know, or if they at least know which AM would have the best chance of knowing. Failing that, ask a CM, or Champ, or the state's RC -- but do not guess!

Any thoughts? Revisions? Additions?
PhantomSoul
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 1651
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:00 am
Location: Union, NJ USA
Has thanked: 299 times
Been thanked: 497 times

Re: City conflict naming update

Postby jondrush » Thu Feb 26, 2015 5:54 pm

It's only after you decide the CDP is legitimate that you would do this comparison. If this is an issue, but a big note at the top of my examples page that it is not to be used as local guidance, or something.
jondrush
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 2644
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:20 pm
Location: South Eastern Pennsylvania, USA
Has thanked: 193 times
Been thanked: 510 times

Re: City conflict naming update

Postby qwaletee » Thu Feb 26, 2015 5:26 pm

Except that we aim to simplify town names. Sure, it resolves the conflict, but why wouldn't I look to an alternate to the CDP first, especially if I have no indication of whether or not the CDP is legitimate?
qwaletee
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 2866
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:42 am
Location: NYC Metro - Active throughout NE^2 (Northeast & New England)
Has thanked: 227 times
Been thanked: 1109 times

Re: City conflict naming update

Postby jondrush » Thu Feb 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Why? It's not a favoring, its a logical progression from official naming status.
jondrush
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 2644
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:20 pm
Location: South Eastern Pennsylvania, USA
Has thanked: 193 times
Been thanked: 510 times

Re: City conflict naming update

Postby qwaletee » Thu Feb 26, 2015 5:17 pm

CDP is favored by stating that you can't really use a modified CDP name, but it may be possible to modify a city name. It gives a preference of leaving the CDP as-is. That's somewhat counter-intuitive.
qwaletee
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 2866
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:42 am
Location: NYC Metro - Active throughout NE^2 (Northeast & New England)
Has thanked: 227 times
Been thanked: 1109 times

Next

Return to Wiki Updates and Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher