Count every street in a city when 2 or more share the same name

Spoiler: I have found almost 2000 of those streets in my hometown alone, and many cities with similar cases.

Some street names are so popular that they have ben given several times within the city limits.

Typically, it happens when smaller independent cities are re-grouped into a bigger city at some point, a general tendency in the public administration of different countries (in Europe - I don’t know the situation overseas).

This issue has been discussed in the past but not in the idea category:

There are different downsides to the current method for street recognition in CS:

  1. striders don’t get credit for all the streets they have run. Here a personal example with 19 streets named the same: https://citystrides.com/streets/11399468 (ignoring the fact that some of them are not regarded as real streets by city authorities, but that is another issue)

  2. the non-counted completed streets are a bias for the monthly challenges (https://citystrides.com/challenges)

  3. the node hunter does not work anymore for some streets that have not been run at all. A personal example: https://citystrides.com/streets/11394359. As of today, there are 2 streets I have never seen in my life, but the node hunter says I have already completed the Friedenstraße because the 4 completed streets with the same name already account for 90% of the 180 nodes.

Because of the last point, I really hope that the popular hard mode idea (User Setting: Hard Mode) will be implemented at least optionally at some point, but the 2 ideas are independent, and I think the situation described here is not as rare as some may believe.

I have computed some provisional numbers for the city of Berlin (where I am only halfway, so I will certainly discover a few more of those streets):

Up to now, I have found 628 street names that are shared by 1873 different streets.

Conversely, it means that at least 1245 ways in OSM are missing from CS street counts just in Berlin.

This is my experience. Are you sure the same name problematic does not affect your city or a city you will visit soon? Even if not, don’t you think the described flaw should be solved?

Street names are the most usual way to define streets and it should stay like this for users in CS, but in the background, streets should be defined by their extremities additionally so that each of them remains identifiable and unique.

Yeah, this is a technical problem that I haven’t resolved yet. :sweat_smile:
It seems like this kind of query is possible (if not in an exact manner): https://github.com/drolbr/Overpass-API/issues/95 I just haven’t figured out the exact syntax.

:thinking:
I’m not sure that this complete query in the link will actually help me. I run a single query to retrieve all of the streets within a city (area in Overpass) & include all of the nodes for those streets as long as they are within the city border.
This complete query seems like it would allow me to get all the streets that are named [something] that are close to each other (e.g. 150 meters), but that would be way more intense (I’d have to iterate over every single street in the city -> do that for the 170k+ cities in CityStrides).

Although, it does seem to work well in that it puts together this section http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/WXv and doesn’t include this section http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/WXw (you may have to click the top left Run button on those pages)

I’ve got 33 ‘streets’ that are named “Park” in my home city of Brisbane. Park Road, Lane, Street, etc. It sure would be nice if CityStrides could distinguish between them all… (including “Park Valet” haha)

If they’re literally named “Park”, then right now the import code will group them all together.

It should not be grouping “Park Road” and “Park Lane” and “Park Street” names. If this is what you’re seeing, my guess is that these are named incorrectly in OpenStreetMap as “Park”.

1 Like

You are correct James, It is only grouping all the “Park Roads” and the “Lanes” - so in fact I only have 11 of each not 33…

Ok phew :sweat_smile: thought there might have been another bug!

1 Like