Attached should be the other examples I was referring to.
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Mike Thompson <miketh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Alan, and I think some others, presented pictures of signs where the > directional was closely associated with the address range. I agree > with them that in those cases there is a strong implication that the > directional is not necessarily part of the street name. Attached are > some examples (only one attached now, others were too big) where I > feel that implication is not present. Note that the directionals are > no where near the address ranges, and in one case the directional is > the same size as the rest of the street name. Also note that these > are not streets where "N <name>" and "S <name>" run parallel to each > other (i.e. the intersection test would suggest that the directionals > be removed). For example, at some point N Wilson just becomes S > Wilson. Also, local residents, businesses and governments sometime > include those directionals when referring to those streets (but not > necessarily all of the time, again, we all like to use short hand at > times when communicating). > > Kevin has sparked a very good debate on this subject. A number of you > have convinced me that in some parts of the country TIGER has rather > arbitrarily inserted directionals, and that in these cases they should > be removed from the name tag. I still feel in other areas the > directionals should remain. > > Thanks >
<<attachment: WEisenhower.JPG>>
<<attachment: NWilson.jpg>>
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
