Adding the state Connecticut to address for Naugatuck Valley Planning Region

Communities United States
1

I’m just trying to add Connecticut as the state in the address for the Naugatuck Valley Planning Region.

When I look at the addressdetails here: https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/search?format=jsonv2&addressdetails=1&county=Naugatuck%20Valley%20Planning%20Region

I get:
“address”: {
“county”: “Naugatuck Valley Planning Region”,
“country”: “United States”,
“country_code”: “us”
},

and the state is missing, but when I look at the Western Connecticut Planning Region: https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/search?format=jsonv2&addressdetails=1&county=Western%20Connecticut%20Planning%20Region

I get:
“address”: {
“county”: “Western Connecticut Planning Region”,
“state”: “Connecticut”,
“ISO3166-2-lvl4”: “US-CT”,
“country”: “United States”,
“country_code”: “us”
},

the state is present, as it is with all the other planning regions in Connecticut and I suspect every county-equivalent in the US.

I’ve added the addr:state Connecticut, but the json didn’t change and I don’t see that done on the other planning regions, so I’m not sure what I need to do.

2

Looking at the detail pages for the Naugatuck Valley and Western Connecticut planning region boundary relations, I don’t see anything that obviously differs between the two, other than the lack of Connecticut in the hierarchy. It shouldn’t be necessary to explicitly tag the state on these relations, and that doesn’t seem to be working anyways. You could report a bug in Nominatim; maybe there’s something going wrong in indexing.

3

Thanks, Minh – I see now it’s under Naugatuck Valley, but I’m not sure what changed except that I added the addr:state tag with a Connecticut value, although I agree it shouldn’t be necessary.

I’m wondering if the addr:state tag should be removed or just left alone now . . . ?

4

It was just removed, so we’ll see how Nominatim responds once it finishes reindexing the relation.