# Streets spanning two cities with one node in one city **URL:** \ **Category:** Support\ **Created:** [November 25, 2025, 11:11pm UTC](https://community.citystrides.com/t/streets-spanning-two-cities-with-one-node-in-one-city/29569 "2025-11-25T23:11:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![nifft555](https://community.citystrides.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/a4c791/32.png) [@nifft555](https://community.citystrides.com/u/nifft555)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2025, 10:04am UTC](https://community.citystrides.com/t/streets-spanning-two-cities-with-one-node-in-one-city/29569/21 "2025-11-20T10:04:34Z")
Thanks Hans. No matter how much I zoomed/squinted didn’t see a name on the original screenshot (so assumed (bad me!) it was unchanged). That makes it make more sense 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![tim1](https://community.citystrides.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/b782af/32.png) [@tim1](https://community.citystrides.com/u/tim1)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2025, 2:20pm UTC](https://community.citystrides.com/t/streets-spanning-two-cities-with-one-node-in-one-city/29569/22 "2025-11-26T14:20:11Z")
Out of interest I looked at one of these “single node” streets which disappeared - Recreation Road and also Cherry Tree Road here has a similar issue. On the right is the “official” representation of the border between East Hampshire (on left side with the single node) and Waverley where the road is really in. It is a bit of moot point as to whether any of Recreation Road is really in East Hampshire as clearly all the houses in it are in Waverley and the boundary “really” seems to stop at the notional “white line” junction with School Road. Of course OSM is more “schematic” and the node for the intersection is in both streets. The boundary as depicted in OSM seems to give the impression that a tiny bit of Recreation Road “really” is in East Hampshire. Ditto for Cherry Tree Road which ends where the aptly named Boundary Road starts. I suppose if any part of Recreation Road and/or Cherry Tree Road is in East Hampshire would need to add another node to make a tiny way consisting of 2 nodes. Further if I ask Google which county this two streets are in and tells me just Surrey (of which Waverley is a part of). It would thus appear that by accident or design this change has “correctly” removed both streets from really being at all in East Hampshire. Not quite sure how in OSM you can draw a road and a boundary so that the boundary is on the far side of the road but does not extend into any adjoining roads? In other OSM is seemingly giving a slightly false impression. I don’t think overlaying the boundary with the road exactly in OSM is prudent either as such things get very messy. I might check some of the other 12 “lost” streets of East Hampshire to see if they basically show a similar situation. ![image](https://d25dflut6m8e53.cloudfront.net/original/2X/9/995a0f8a725e1f8a5d8539062c6fa72832c1aaaa.jpeg) ![image](https://d25dflut6m8e53.cloudfront.net/original/2X/1/1b51961feb7ff090231bb08fc1862810cdc5f527.png) ![image](https://d25dflut6m8e53.cloudfront.net/original/2X/4/4b3498724573bd99477593892eeb1121da534bf7.jpeg) ---
**Author:** ![nicholas.kollett](https://community.citystrides.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/dfb087/32.png) [@nicholas.kollett](https://community.citystrides.com/u/nicholas.kollett)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2025, 3:54pm UTC](https://community.citystrides.com/t/streets-spanning-two-cities-with-one-node-in-one-city/29569/23 "2025-11-27T15:54:53Z")
I’ve been thinking about the issue where a street physically extends into a city but only registers a single node within the border, causing it to be excluded under the current “no single-node streets” rule. What if the system treated the _start node_ and _end node_ of each linestring as valid nodes when evaluating whether a street segment belongs in a city? In other words: • If a linestring crosses into a city, count both the entry point and exit point (or the first and last nodes inside the border) as part of that street’s node set. • This would allow legitimate fragments of streets that _do_ exist inside a city—just with minimal geometry—to be recognized as streets to complete. • Streets that only _touch_ the border from the outside would still be excluded, because they would truly only have one node in the city. This could resolve the issue of valid border-crossing streets being lost, while still preventing the “single random node” artifacts the new data source created. ---
**Author:** ![tim1](https://community.citystrides.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/b782af/32.png) [@tim1](https://community.citystrides.com/u/tim1)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2025, 1:50pm UTC](https://community.citystrides.com/t/streets-spanning-two-cities-with-one-node-in-one-city/29569/24 "2025-11-28T13:50:05Z")
Here is a tricky one > **[Way: ‪Prunella Place‬ (‪389904040‬)](https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/389904040)** > > OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license. [Way: ‪Prunella Place‬ (‪389904040‬) | OpenStreetMap](https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/389904040) > **[Prunella Place - CityStrides](https://citystrides.com/streets/10867102)** > > The best tool to help you Run Every Street This Prunella Place is a very short street so just has 2 nodes. However one is in Winchester and the other in Havant. I just synched Havant and it got deleted. Assume when I synch Winchester it will get removed there as well and so it is a street you effectively can’t “do” in CS any more! If I add a “middle” node on the way for the street that also intersects with the boundary line in OSM, will that do the trick here? It is a bit fiddly in OSM to do that but may as well give it a go. I have tried elsewhere adding a point both sides of the boundary line to see what effect it has but waiting for the city synch queue to settle down! ---
**Author:** ![hans1](https://community.citystrides.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/h/e68b1a/32.png) [@hans1](https://community.citystrides.com/u/hans1)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2025, 2:16pm UTC](https://community.citystrides.com/t/streets-spanning-two-cities-with-one-node-in-one-city/29569/25 "2025-11-28T14:16:40Z")
I’ve alternative 2, one node on each side of the boundary a couple of times, seems to work fine ---
**Author:** ![stst415](https://community.citystrides.com/user_avatar/community.citystrides.com/stst415/32/1797_2.png) [@stst415](https://community.citystrides.com/u/stst415)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2025, 1:18am UTC](https://community.citystrides.com/t/streets-spanning-two-cities-with-one-node-in-one-city/29569/26 "2025-12-08T01:18:01Z")
@JamesChevalier, your map at the bottom of this post is the way that it’s been _for years_ and the way that it _should_ be. In order to complete Northampton Street, one would need to do the main trunk _and_ the single node dot out near Mount Tom. That situation follows the _exact same_ logic as when we deal with cities that have two completely different streets in different neighborhoods but with the same names. And that happens _a lot_ already. See this example in the city of Los Angeles: ![Clipboard-1](https://d25dflut6m8e53.cloudfront.net/original/2X/b/bce509328a8683af12cb751ef6b69e1aba6d1e62.jpeg) We have _two_ West 3rd Streets (not to mention lots of other duplicate numbered and even non-numbered streets). If somebody finishes the long one that extends west out of Downtown L.A., they _still_ need to head 25 miles south to the neighborhood of San Pedro (but still in the city of Los Angeles) to finish the _other_ same-named streets in order for it count as done. Thus, _we’re used to this already._ But when you omit the single-node streets, you not only run into numerous problems that are described by other users above, but you just don’t get accurate street counts anymore and that defeats one of the very goals of this website. This all came to my attention since the newest Los Angeles update went through today. _This single-node issue deleted 150 streets!!_ I lost 10 completed streets from my personal total. After that update, I spent 20 minutes digging around Open Street Map to figure out what was going on since none of those streets should have vanished. Lots of prominent streets are now gone simply because they have one node instead of two across a border with Burbank, Culver City, and other cities. Once I figured out the pattern, I came to the forums and found this topic. It’s not right. _ **If a street crosses a city border into a new city, it should count.** _ Scott Trimble Calabasas, CA > **[Scott Trimble's Map View - CityStrides](https://citystrides.com/users/27988/map)** > > The best tool to help you Run Every Street ============================================== NORTHAMPTON STREET EXAMPLE BELOW: ![Screenshot 2025-11-19 at 1.50.08 PM](https://d25dflut6m8e53.cloudfront.net/original/2X/0/01687ecaab95cb599f8f416f02394549f90e50b3.jpeg) ---
**Author:** ![stst415](https://community.citystrides.com/user_avatar/community.citystrides.com/stst415/32/1797_2.png) [@stst415](https://community.citystrides.com/u/stst415)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2025, 1:31am UTC](https://community.citystrides.com/t/streets-spanning-two-cities-with-one-node-in-one-city/29569/27 "2025-12-08T01:31:20Z")
By the way, to those of you who are suggesting the mind-numbingly tedious task of finding these now-omitted streets (150 in the city of Los Angeles alone) and trying to get them added back to CityStrides, be aware…. Sure, you can add one more node and the street would get added back in, but, later, all that another completely unaware user would need to do is to hit S to _straighten_ that same line (assuming the road is generally straight anyway) and your previously redundant node would vanish, so the street would disappear a second time in the next update. That’s why this whole issue is so frustrating. Having real-life streets disappear because of a completely arbitrary and truly non-existent-in-the-real-world _node_ is insane. But having to complete different segments of same-named streets in different parts of town is a _real-life_ geography problem, so we can _accept_ that. Scott ---
**Author:** ![JamesChevalier](https://community.citystrides.com/user_avatar/community.citystrides.com/jameschevalier/32/2_2.png) [@JamesChevalier](https://community.citystrides.com/u/JamesChevalier)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2025, 2:39pm UTC](https://community.citystrides.com/t/streets-spanning-two-cities-with-one-node-in-one-city/29569/28 "2025-12-08T14:39:34Z")
> [@stst415](#): > > your map at the bottom of this post is the way that it’s been _for years_ and the way that it _should_ be. In order to complete Northampton Street, one would need to do the main trunk _and_ the single node dot out near Mount Tom. Ah, no, you’re conflating the “same name streets count as one street” issue and this issue where a street reaches and does not cross the city border. The [Northampton Street](https://citystrides.com/streets/227235) that is out near Mount Tom is not in [Easthampton](https://citystrides.com/cities/1690). That street only exists in [Holyoke](https://citystrides.com/cities/1649). At the border, its name changes to [North Street](https://citystrides.com/streets/244805) for the section that’s within Easthampton & then its name changes again at the border of [Northampton](https://citystrides.com/cities/1697), to [Mt Tom Road](https://citystrides.com/streets/245906). 😅 I’m saying this to clarify the situation, not to take a stance on the current state of things. I _think_ [this post](https://community.citystrides.com/t/streets-spanning-two-cities-with-one-node-in-one-city/29569/14) sums up the situation well enough. > [@stst415](#): > > 150 in the city of Los Angeles alone Yeah, LA is _ **huge** _. It’s very much an outlier around the globe. Most cities don’t come close to being this affected by the issue. ---
**Author:** ![stst415](https://community.citystrides.com/user_avatar/community.citystrides.com/stst415/32/1797_2.png) [@stst415](https://community.citystrides.com/u/stst415)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2025, 3:17pm UTC](https://community.citystrides.com/t/streets-spanning-two-cities-with-one-node-in-one-city/29569/29 "2025-12-08T15:17:28Z")
It’s _not_ conflating. In Open Street Maps, most streets do not start or end on a precisely defined border since the border might actually be alongside the road or following a natural feature that parallels the road, as even your Northampton Street proves…. ![aaa](https://d25dflut6m8e53.cloudfront.net/original/2X/4/416654d81ddccced407551f02ec50af7bd0d8aa1.jpeg) Northampton Street _DOES CROSS THE BORDER into Easthampton from Northampton_, so, yes, somebody should indeed run/walk this spot too to count it as done. It’s visible right there in the image and you were the last one to edit it. I don’t know the particulars of this road, but, elsewhere, this can happen because the street sign that changes the road name might not have been placed on the actual border but perhaps some distance away, or maybe the road got shifted due to a landslide, or a river changed course. But the city border stayed the same. Again, you are removing the _reality_ of real-life geography for the arbitrariness of where a made-up node happens to exist. You are also forcing people to do unethical things like fudging maps with fake nodes in order to keep the geographical reality going here at CityStrides. ![2](https://d25dflut6m8e53.cloudfront.net/original/2X/c/c314bd9e688ffc3e6ff1a1531716d130e3e82ae7.jpeg) These two examples alone already _proved_ my point of view. It could be argued, so what, Northampton Street only extends a few feet into the other city. The street above goes a _significant_ distance into the other city (but still with one node). And Prunella Place can’t even exist _at all_ in City Strides with the one-node rule in place. _This is insane_. And please don’t dismiss Los Angeles in the same way as the other detective in the movie Chinatown (“Forget it, Jake, it’s Chinatown”). Sure, Los Angeles is big, but its rules along the city borders are no different than other places around the world that I’ve seen in OSM. Please think harder on this issue and revert it back to the way it’s been all this time. You’re trying to fix something that was never broken and you’re taking away part of the joy of CityStrides wherein we learn about these fascinating geographical quirks as we run/walk. Scott ---
**Author:** ![stst415](https://community.citystrides.com/user_avatar/community.citystrides.com/stst415/32/1797_2.png) [@stst415](https://community.citystrides.com/u/stst415)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2025, 4:02pm UTC](https://community.citystrides.com/t/streets-spanning-two-cities-with-one-node-in-one-city/29569/30 "2025-12-08T16:02:53Z")
Here is another way to think about it. Imagine a survey: Hey, CityStrides users, would you rather lose anywhere from 5 to 25 streets from your completion count due to quirks of how OSM was designed and CS was programmed? Or… in order to officially complete a particular street, would you rather pick up one final node elsewhere across town, _a town that you are trying to complete regardless and you would’ve hit that spot eventually anyway?_ ---
**Author:** ![nicholas.kollett](https://community.citystrides.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/dfb087/32.png) [@nicholas.kollett](https://community.citystrides.com/u/nicholas.kollett)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2025, 5:12pm UTC](https://community.citystrides.com/t/streets-spanning-two-cities-with-one-node-in-one-city/29569/31 "2025-12-08T17:12:53Z")
This change is also unintentionally removing short single-node streets that have nothing to do with border issues and are located entirely within a city/town. ---
**Author:** ![JamesChevalier](https://community.citystrides.com/user_avatar/community.citystrides.com/jameschevalier/32/2_2.png) [@JamesChevalier](https://community.citystrides.com/u/JamesChevalier)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2025, 5:57pm UTC](https://community.citystrides.com/t/streets-spanning-two-cities-with-one-node-in-one-city/29569/32 "2025-12-08T17:57:19Z")
> [@stst415](#): > > Northampton Street _DOES CROSS THE BORDER into Easthampton from Northampton_, so, yes, somebody should indeed run/walk this spot too to count it as done. We’re now focusing on two separate pieces of data. I don’t seem to be doing a good job of articulating the nuance of this issue. Your screenshot is focused on the section with purple nodes in the image below. That’s the known good street that is and should be included in Easthampton. Everything is working as we would both expect it to there. Over on the eastern side, under the text “Mount Tom”, there’s a red node that is used in two Way records in OpenStreetMap - North Street in Easthampton (great! bring it in!) and Northampton Street in Holyoke (No! Wrong city!). There is nothing made up here in this very specific but important example. The Northampton Street with the red node in this image does not exist in Easthampton and should not be included. Looking at _specifically_ and _only_ this street in these two cities, we are likely in agreement. ![Screenshot 2025-11-19 at 1.50.08 PM](https://d25dflut6m8e53.cloudfront.net/original/2X/0/01687ecaab95cb599f8f416f02394549f90e50b3.jpeg) In cases like [Prunella Place](https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/389904040), it’s different. Let’s assume the city border is correct, and Prunella Place actually straddles both Havant & Winchester (tough for me to determine, because general searches place it in Waterlooville, Hampshire… but I’m not using either of those admin levels & the OSM boundary for Waterlooville doesn’t agree 🤷 whatever, I can only deal with one catastrophe at a time). The result _should_ be that you’ve got a piece of Prunella Place in Havant, and a piece in Winchester. We’re both agreeing on this. > [@stst415](#): > > Please think harder on this issue and revert it back to the way it’s been all this time. You’re trying to fix something that was never broken Oh, you’ve also missed [Updates on October 31, 2025 (Release 1314)](https://community.citystrides.com/t/updates-on-october-31-2025-release-1314/29527) which is the root cause of this issue. The background is that the previous data source was incredibly unreliable, adding to the slowness of city syncing. It got to the point where the system had to retry collecting city data multiple times before it would return data successfully. I had to do something about this, it was not sustainable long term. That previous system had what I _think_ was a kind of dual query that would gather a collection of Way records that passed through the city border, as well as another set of data for all the nodes within the city border. As far as I could tell, this was excluding nodes _on_ the border. This is what allowed it to properly exclude that node from Northampton Street in Holyoke while also including the relevant node from Prunella Place. I didn’t need a “no single node streets” rule. I haven’t figured out the PostGIS query that’s comparable to that old Overpass query yet. It’s currently operating on a kind of “pass into or touch“ definition, which is incorrectly including streets like Holyoke’s Northampton Street within Easthampton because it touches. The best way I could temporarily handle this was to exclude single node streets. Unfortunately, it matches both streets where the way record only touches the border as well as streets where the way record only has one node validly within the border. Going back to my earlier reply, this is a no-win temporary choice … I either upset/confuse people because extra streets are incorrectly added, or I upset/confuse people because some straddling streets are removed. In my quick research, this issue looked skewed in the chosen direction - fewer streets would be removed than would have been incorrectly added. > [@nicholas.kollett](#): > > short single-node streets This is interesting! I’m not aware of any such Way record. Do you happen to have a link for me to check out? ---
**Author:** ![stst415](https://community.citystrides.com/user_avatar/community.citystrides.com/stst415/32/1797_2.png) [@stst415](https://community.citystrides.com/u/stst415)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2025, 8:24pm UTC](https://community.citystrides.com/t/streets-spanning-two-cities-with-one-node-in-one-city/29569/33 "2025-12-08T20:24:23Z")
It’s amazing that after all this back and forth you still think I don’t understand the Northampton Road issue. I do. For the record…. ![northampton](https://d25dflut6m8e53.cloudfront.net/original/2X/e/e22717680eef9bbc4166b0124c8b270988df8e08.jpeg) … Northampton Road _does_ cross over that city boundary, so, yes, it should be included in CS. But, to the overall point, I just feel, whether a road extends a quarter mile into a city, a few feet into the city, or ends right on the border, it should be included as being _in_ that city. 🙂 > I either upset/confuse people because extra streets are incorrectly added, or I upset/confuse people because some straddling streets are removed. As a business owner, wouldn’t you rather your customers get a handful of points for completed streets that _you_ (though perhaps not they) feel as if they shouldn’t actually have… than to _take away_ a lot more points from other customers who legitimately earned them? It’s better to give away a few extra chocolate chip cookies than to take away entire birthday cakes elsewhere. Anyway, I’m grateful for your responses and the overall work that you do here, so I won’t push the issue any further, particularly since there are technical conundrums going on that are way over my pay grade! I wish you well as you sort it all out. Thank you! 🙂 Scott ---
**Author:** ![JamesChevalier](https://community.citystrides.com/user_avatar/community.citystrides.com/jameschevalier/32/2_2.png) [@JamesChevalier](https://community.citystrides.com/u/JamesChevalier)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2025, 8:58pm UTC](https://community.citystrides.com/t/streets-spanning-two-cities-with-one-node-in-one-city/29569/34 "2025-12-08T20:58:27Z")
> [@stst415](#): > > It’s amazing that after all this back and forth you still think I don’t understand the Northampton Road issue. 🔍 oh, maybe you have the cities mixed up - this very zoomed in screenshot is indicating that Northampton Street is overflowing into _Northampton_… The area above that blue line is Northampton & the area below that blue line is Easthampton. Maybe you’ve been indicating that upper node is what should be included in that upper city (Northampton), and I’ve been focusing on your phrasing of “Northampton Street DOES CROSS THE BORDER into Easthampton from Northampton” (with the directionality of that statement being wrong - in your newest screenshot I can see that it’s crossing the border into Northampton from Easthampton). 🫣 I’d disagree with that, as well - it’s Easthampton Road on the Northampton side of the border. This warrants an update to the way records to split _at_ the city boundaries, fixing the name on each side - as pedantic as that may be. But, also, this is still the _very specific_ aspect of the overall issue that _should_ be fixed in this way. There’s still plenty of data like Prunella Place that we’re both in agreement should be present in both cities. I just need to figure that out. > [@stst415](#): > > As a business owner, wouldn’t you rather your customers get a handful of points for completed streets that _you_ (though perhaps not they) feel as if they shouldn’t actually have… than to _take away_ a lot more points from other customers who legitimately earned them? I strive for correctness over points. There are things I’ve run into where “nothing” is correct, at which point a “least worst” decision needs to be made. Sometimes I get to make a temporary decision so that I can wrap up one piece of work (the core city sync code) … fix/improve something elsewhere (the post-sync processing performance) … so that I can return to fix/improve the interim decision (allowing single node streets _within_ but not _on_ the city border). > [@stst415](#): > > Anyway, I’m grateful for your responses and the overall work that you do here, so I won’t push the issue any further I’m trying 😰 ---
**Author:** ![tim1](https://community.citystrides.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/b782af/32.png) [@tim1](https://community.citystrides.com/u/tim1)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2025, 2:04am UTC](https://community.citystrides.com/t/streets-spanning-two-cities-with-one-node-in-one-city/29569/35 "2025-12-09T02:04:08Z")
BTW I do go “node adding” in East Hampshire and “regained” about 10 streets and “fixed” Prunella Place. I must say that some of them were very dubious as whether they “really” had a tiny bit in one city. OSM is of course “schematic” and often I find side streets extend essentially falsely past their junction as the connection on OSM is of course typically more “in the middle” of the road it connects with. Also I observed some boundary lines that looked “unlikely” to be the exact course and essentially not straight but “waving about a bit”. Still best not to try and “fix” boundary lines when have no basis to do so. ---
**Author:** ![facebook](https://community.citystrides.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/f/c0e974/32.png) [@facebook](https://community.citystrides.com/u/facebook)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2025, 11:30pm UTC](https://community.citystrides.com/t/streets-spanning-two-cities-with-one-node-in-one-city/29569/37 "2025-12-09T23:30:37Z")
W 239th St is an example of a street in Los Angeles that completely disappeared because only one node is in the city limits. Even though the entire length of this street segment is in Los Angeles. ![image](https://d25dflut6m8e53.cloudfront.net/original/2X/6/6fd5473019f325c9a6e306e605e61efd379b5d00.jpeg) ---
**Author:** ![JamesChevalier](https://community.citystrides.com/user_avatar/community.citystrides.com/jameschevalier/32/2_2.png) [@JamesChevalier](https://community.citystrides.com/u/JamesChevalier)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2025, 12:26am UTC](https://community.citystrides.com/t/streets-spanning-two-cities-with-one-node-in-one-city/29569/38 "2025-12-10T00:26:52Z")
That’s a useful example to add to the mix. I’ll keep this one in mind as I continue to work on this issue. ![Screenshot 2025-12-09 at 6.59.51 PM](https://d25dflut6m8e53.cloudfront.net/original/2X/c/c6a38f79a203732b9c2efbd1d4d9397e114b0395.jpeg) This is much more on the “Full On OpenStreetMap Nerd” side of things - I’m not really considering the implications within CityStrides here, I’m just wondering how to best handle this & situations like it in OSM. Keep in mind, if you continue reading, that the OSM editing community is _incredibly_ detail oriented. My quick searching suggests that Fulmar Avenue is not in LA, but rather [Torrance](https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2314273#map=18/33.806868/-118.308758). So the blue line (the border of LA) in the screenshot above would seem more or less correct. The shared node between Fulmar Ave & West 239th St is also correct. It’s a bit of an assumption, but it feels like a safe one to make - if they _didn’t_ share that node, then direction services wouldn’t be able to route you to [that third house](https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/407817664) on the street. LA ain’t [Maine](https://www.telegram.com/story/business/names-faces/2008/11/11/album-mocked-maine-ways/52199354007/), so… So if Fulmar isn’t in LA and W239th isn’t in Torrance, I’m not sure what the best/most-correct way to draw all three lines is. - I don’t know if it makes sense to attach the blue line to the shared node, ensuring the rest of the blue line stays east of Fulmar. - I don’t know if it makes sense to align Fulmar and the blue line, causing Fulmar to _be_ the border of LA/Torrance. - I don’t know, technically speaking (full on OSM pedantic mode), how this defines the space between the shared node on Fulmar and the LA city border… e.g. it’s not W239th because that’s not in Torrance ---
**Author:** ![stst415](https://community.citystrides.com/user_avatar/community.citystrides.com/stst415/32/1797_2.png) [@stst415](https://community.citystrides.com/u/stst415)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2025, 10:04pm UTC](https://community.citystrides.com/t/streets-spanning-two-cities-with-one-node-in-one-city/29569/39 "2025-12-10T22:04:38Z")
First, Robb Briggs / @facebook, great find. There are so many of these (like I said, 150 of them in Los Angeles), but they’re small and hard to dig up. Second, James, my input on your OSM query…. Nothing changes. The blue border _is_ the border. Borders are sometimes in the middle of the street, sometimes on the side of the street, and sometimes right through houses. (Remember that classic story of the house and church that have the U.S.-Canadian border go right them?). They’re quirks of history. Sometimes roads get realigned, rivers change courses, earthquakes happen and we rebuild slightly differently…. Borders are real-life, defined by city surveyors. They can’t move. I just cleaned up the street nodes a little bit in the neighborhood around W. 239th Street. (And, side note, I added a couple of kinks in that cul-de-sac so it comes back to CS… which was legit because that segment isn’t TRULY straight, as you can see in the aerial imagery). Anyway, Fulmar Avenue and the houses on the west are in Torrance. The houses on the east have Torrance addresses (for GPS and USPS purposes), but they are in Los Angeles. And W. 239th Street starts in Torrance at the middle of the intersection and is 95% in Los Angeles. 🙂 Torrance has other portions of W. 239th Street further west. So, yes, to my point earlier, walkers & runners who complete the western segments will still have to come to Fulmar Avenue to pick up that final node in the middle of the intersection. There’s nothing wrong with that and it’s just part of the fun of the CityStrides collecting game. 🙂 Scott [Previous page](https://community.citystrides.com/t/streets-spanning-two-cities-with-one-node-in-one-city/29569.md?page=1)