Waze forum

In general, many highways and interstates have no addresses associated with them. Yes, sometimes smaller highways do, but for the larger ones which simply pass through urban boundaries, they often are major conduits from location to location without any need to have a city tied to the segments.

Is there a reason why, besides just because they are within an urban area, interstates and other non-address highways should have a city associated with them?

I tend not to attached a city name to Major Highways and Interstates, mainly because you get duplication of names when reporting on them. For example: a report I made today in an area someone else had named came up as "M5 (S), Hutton (North Somerset) near Hutton (North Somerset)". Clearly redundant information!

I don't add city/town names to motorways (freeways) or dual carriageways since on the reports Waze would say something like "Accident // M25 (ACW) - Near Dartford (Kent)". I don't see the point in adding it if it works already and end up with the problem faitaru says with duplicate names appearing.

If there is no city connected to the segment, the client wil report with 'near' or 'between'.

Hi Everyone!

I am agree with faitaru, I don't add the city name on the Major Highways.
I add them only for the local freeway which stay in the city (which I consider almost like a local road), but not others.

Do you think that it make sense?

Traffic reports from the client will mention the city. I believe it is pulling it from the named city on the segment of the report.

I'm still trying to figure the logic in having to have a state associated with a Parking Lot Road.