qwaletee wrote:Many CDPs really are not used; many are. The CDP was developed by the Census office for their convenience in administering and reporting their activities and data. They use them for unincorporated areas (a good thing for mapping), incorpoarated areas that they do not recognize as incorporated (bad), and sometimes to break up or consolidate municipalities (bad).
qwaletee wrote:Now, how does that drive our discussion about conflicts? If a CDP is real and important, then it carries the similar weight as a real city name. But in other cases - probably the majority - why would we favor a weak CDP against a real city name?
ialangford wrote:Well here's the question. If you are in Baltimore and say you're from "Queen Anne", which place do people think you're from?
qwaletee wrote:But that doesn't mean we should write a guideline that explicitly pushes CDPs (unofficial names), over municipalities (official names), where the CDP is "not real" or "relatively unimportant." Where it makes sense to choose the CDP, the workflow allows for it, as in the Queen Anne case. Otherwise, it seems like a series of questionable assumptions.
Current Wiki wrote:1. If a postal area or CDP (Census Designated Place as found on the Census Tract Maps) and a city conflict, append something to the city name, since CDPs and Postal areas don’t have any other common appellation.
qwaletee wrote:And the existing guideline does NOT match the quote above it.
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.
Users browsing this forum: Jakflash