I'll look for the links, but they're going to be as buried as this conversation is going to be. Give me some time. I'm sorry about Wandrer... perhaps contact the programmer about shrinking alley fonts. removing entirely, or giving you points for them. I listed several reasons the L.A. community accepted the alley names, but I forgot one more -- public safety. It's a lot easier to call 911 and report "Alley 12345" from your phone than to describe "Oh, I guess it runs north of X Street -- wait, make that south... I think -- and between Y Avenue and I guess Z Road". Sorry I haven't responded to your private message yet. I'll catch up on that later and look for links.

Hey Ray. Except for that vestigial city-alley-turned-parking-lane change (I support that), thank you for NOT going wider with any removals (there are literally thousands of alley names already inputted in L.A. County). 👍

In the last few years, there have been several prominent OSM mappers working in L.A. (with WAY more experience at this than even I have) who have raised similar questions and cited similar thoughts about reference numbering. After friendly debate, the takeaway has always been to leave the alley names. They're all tagged with name:signed=no (which was significant for their acceptance), they add to the usefulness of apps like CityStrides and Wandrer, and, importantly, they contribute to public knowledge (not to mention usage since the City uses these numbers too). That last bit is why I also do deep dives to find official names of all our concrete-lined streams and other tributaries into the L.A. River. If people see an alley or a creek with no name, they respect it and care for it less than if it was the other way around.

Oh, and if you're curious, the official alley names for the city of Burbank came from https://gis.burbankca.gov/ But I have YET to find any official designations for the city of San Fernando, so if you ever find it, please let me know!

Hey, Ray Reh. Good find on the geohub because that was indeed a major source. And you are correct that they are seemingly temporarily removed from display (I actually think it was a glitch, but I haven't tried reporting it yet). But the 5-digit names do appear elsewhere at the city and even the geohub still has them in the KMZ files, etc. I'm linking here to your example alley, https://x3mo.net/LOS-ANGELES-ALLEY-80875 There's been discussion elsewhere at OSM about all this and the consensus seems to be that the 5-digit numbers are the best choice (as opposed to that 10-digit number that nobody has really figured out). And I've referenced the 5-digit numbers in L.A. city permits (I'm a feature film & TV location manager) and they were properly recognized there. :-)
Cheers! ---- Scott

Haha! No. I found the number online. :-)

Yes, it changes per block which actually makes it MORE useful than, say, Burbank's system since it helps to pinpoint more specifically. And, it IS a hill that I'd die on because I've spent literally countless hours over 2 years adding these (as well as streams & rivers, my other project), but, in general, I'd argue it's not niche. If I had an alley behind my house, I'd sure want to know its proper designation. :-) And I mentioned city permit applications, but it's also useful for emergencies (I've even once called 911 about an encampment fire and I referenced the adjacent alley name). And, like I said, they're tagged as to whether they're physically signed or not. Thanks again for the feedback. Cheers! :-)

Hi Yawfle. Thanks for the comment. While I agree that official_ref might be more technically correct, it's less useful since it'll never display to the public in the vast majority of maps. I work in the film industry where it's useful to us to be able to access these alley names for film permit applications, for example. I've added many hundreds (possibly thousands) of these alley names already and my solution has been to use the name:signed=no tag instead, so as to show that there are no physical street signs with these names (except in the rare cases where there actually are signs). As for pitching in, here's where I can use help! Los Angeles uses these 5-digit numbers. Burbank uses a format like "Alley X of Z" (where X is North, South, East, or West, and Z is a major named street). But what about the city of San Fernando?? I haven't been able to find what they designate their alleys (it's possible, of course, that there's simply NO name for them in their city limits, but I can't be sure yet). --- Scott

The current location is just over 1 mile southeast of here. THIS building is an empty shell that is currently either going to be leased or demolished, TBD.

willkmis, I appreciate you taking the extra time to educate me. I'm removing the name=* right now. And when I get a chance a little later today or tomorrow, I'll read further and utilize one or two of the alternate choices that you suggested. Cheers!

I suppose the name could be moved to official_name=*, but let me ask you this. If it’s there instead (and name=* is blank), how would anybody who’s not an OSM editor ever see or find the information?

I read that wiki (thank you), but I still feel as if this is "official usage" which is allowed. And with the name:signed=no, wouldn't GPS systems this *not* reference this name anyway? It's certainly not unnamed=yes or noname=yes when it does have a name. 🤷 As a general rule, I look TO maps to LEARN these kind of details about what’s around me, so I appreciate seeing such trivial descriptors. 👍

As for the source, it's all over the various L.A. databases, including Zone Information & Map Access System. I work for Netflix and we're currently in the process of temporarily shutting down this 1-block stretch for a shoot, so this Frontage Road number was vital for our permitting process. Other people who aren’t familiar with the deep dive databases might appreciate the information being made easier to find next time.

This was the city calls it, and it has name:signed=no to clarify. 👍

My description got cut off at the end. Here's the FULL part with the questions: "I added Lone Ranger Rock in the Garden of the Gods section of Chatsworth, Los Angeles, including the hiking paths that lead up to it. In the opening credits of the old TV show, this is where the Lone Ranger reared up his horse Silver. Is "Historic Site" the best type of point to use for this? Or is there something better for cinematic historical locations? Would one mark a famous TV show or movie house or other such filming location with this "Historic Site" point or is there a way to mark the Area shape appropriately?

ALL of the most recent additions are now correctly tagged name:signed=no. I pulled up the github link, but it's new to me, so I'll have to delve through it later to make the report. Thank you!

Oh, and it's not just happening on items that I'm submitting. I did an Overpass Turbo query for other places with name:signed=no and found these two buildings that also had their tag converted into the Multilingual Names section....
way/440168323
and way/427938933

Spaghetti Monster, I'm seeing that it wasn't just that app. The ID editor is doing the same thing. Please check out the comments on the following changeset page. What can I do differently to keep this from happening? changeset/118639107#map=19/34.22573/-118.64786

I think I see why this is happening. The page osm.wiki/Multilingual_names shows that the city of Moscow (as an example) is coded name:ru=Москва which is very similar to name:signed=no. It's assuming "signed" is the language.

Yes, I have been in the process of adding name:signed=no, but the "Go Map!!" OSM app mistakenly translated that tag into the addition of two Multilingual Names ("signed" and "no") which I am in the process of correcting. All the rest of the fixes should be done by the end of today.

Done!

Hi Spaghetti Monster… I have always believed in you! In regards to your comment, I know what you mean and I know how I’d do the corrections. First, though, does it make a difference that this undeveloped street actually has signage?? Yes, strangely, there’s at least one “Orchard Trail” sign out there labeling this ghost street. I checked the property records and saw the right-of-way meant to be there….