On maps with very dense street names, I often resort to abbreviating the street name and including a list on the map that translates abbreviations to their names. On a current map, one where the customer has set the map size, I find that abbreviations will be too numerous and decided, for many names, to drop designators like "Ct.," "Dr.," and "St." from unique street names. This provides more room to get more names in. I wonder if other mapmakers use the same approach.

I suppose that most map readers of street maps are looking for a particular name, like Appleblossom Drive. If they look in the index and find the coordinates for "Appleblossom Drive," it will suffice to only show "Appleblossom" on the map. Of course, there are many times when there are two Appleblossom on the same map--a "Drive" and a "Court" for instance. But for unique streets, is there any harm in reducing the street name to its essential name?

Curious what other cartographers think about this approach.

I think you have taken a sane approach to solving the problem. Maps having smaller scales must, by definition, have more generalization, and this is an effort in this direction. By preserving the full name (abbreviated as may be possible) when the root name is not unique you are going far enough to make it usable despite its scale challenging you and the user.

People/firms who specify map scales should really understand this. City street maps of the USA are often half the scale of similar maps in Europe or Australia. There seems to be a tradition of forcing smaller scales on users (and cartographers) which is absent in other places. Line styles come into play, since North American maps use single-line street styles, whereas many European maps never do this. Typical maps showing all street names in the USA are 1:30 000 to 1:50 000. Elsewhere 1:15 000 to 1:25 000 is the more common range.

If only we had city planners subscribing to this list. It often seems that they intentionally assign long names to short streets just to challenge or punish cartographers. There should be a law that the number of characters in a street name is proportional to its length. And that root names should be unique if the street is short. But often short spur streets are named the same as their feeders, with Court or Lane used to differentiate them. In Australia this is not done--such streets are called "Little <rootname> Street" which is even worse for us! However, since it is so common there, one can shorten it to "L <rootname>" and get away with it.

A lot will depend on the area being mapped, and local custom and usage.

My inclination is to drop the street/place/court UNLESS it is absolutely necessary. So even on a map where they're needed in certain areas, I'll drop them except in that area.

I do a lot of field checking for phone book maps that we create, and I frequently find that local usage could not be less concerned with these distinctions. The city engineer's map will say "Avenue," the zoning map will say "Street," and the street sign on the corner will say "Lane." Truth is, the locals are just going to say "turn left on Donna."

On arterial maps, I try to eschew designators as well, but sometimes euphony seems to demand them. Most common is when Kirkwood Road leads through the suburb of Kirkwood, for example. I feel the "Road" is helpful and sounds less funny. Similarly for things like "West Avenue" or "Lake Shore Drive." If I imagine that the guy at the gas station would feel compelled to include the designator in casually given directions, then I include it as well.

Don't blame the city planners! (I spent 11 years working at the American Planning Association).

It's the developers who come up with street names for their new subdivisions, and who are convinced that home sales are proportional to the length and romantic allusions of the name. They are convinced that naming a street "West 77th St" is only slightly better than naming it "Toxic Waste Lane."

But it's certainly a lot of fun for those of us trying to fit "Camino de los Rincones Serenos" into a cul-de-sac.

OK, shoot the developers. :-)

One way that some get around this is, if there is open room (parks, woodlands) nearby, is to assign index numbers to such streets and provide a list of their actual names. I've seen this often enough. But I personally hate the lack of mnemonic character that numbers have. Your "Camino de los Rincones Serenos" could be abbreviated to CdlRS, and similarly for others around it. Then it is easier to remember what you are looking for, and you can remember several at once, even learn to "decode" the abbreviations. Certainly if you are driving around knowing how the abbreviation works you can quickly equate a street sign with its abbreviation on the map without even resorting to list off to the side in the nearby woodlands. If you are driving and using a map (while stopped, of course) you are under handicaps of space to open it, usually substandard lighting conditions, etc. Anything to make it easier is a big plus.

My favorites are the homeowners who decide to name their driveways. The local Planning Dept. doesn't keep track, the US Postal Service adopts it and the homeowners fail to notify emergency services or delivery companies and I get calls, "Where's Jim Bob's Lane?"

I've found on streets with identical root names and different suffixes, that if the space is tight I'll drop the rootname on the child street and only use the suffix (i.e., Ct., Ln.,). However, I only use this method in situations that there is not other way to fit the rootname in.