Redundant Road Names?

I see quite a few generic road names added by Grab recently.

For road ref 1030 the name ‘Highway 1030’ was added.

For road ref อย.4014 the name ‘Rural Road Ayutthaya 4014’ was added.

Is this a new policy? Should we add these names to all DOH and DRR roads?


I’ve found few of them too.

I’m against tagging such names. It isn’t a name. It’s a ref. If there is no common name for that road, the DOH and DRR have provided a “ชื่อสายทาง” (Route Name) for all of their roads, which can be used for a name tag.


@Saikat_Maiti Could you please provide your input on this?

I agree for not tagging these names.

As for the ชื่อสายทาง. The DRR Route Name is usually just a description where a road begins and where it ends. For อย.4014 this is ‘แยก ทล. 3263 (กม.ที่ 11+250) - บ้านเกาะ’. This is not a suitable road name. IMHO in most cases the name tag for a DRR Road should be empty.

1 Like

I think ชื่อสายทาง is a name to call that road given by the authority, but I agree that if no one use it to call that road in everyday life, noname=yes should be the better option, and then put ชื่อสายทาง in another tag, like official_name.


Hi @Mark_B ,

Thank you for bringing up the discussion, yes, a few names were added by our local mapping team, based on the missing road survey referred to DOH & DRR. We are not running any specific project for it. It is entirely based on a few feedbacks from our driver-partners on missing road names.

I agree that Ref number should not be added as a highway name. I would like to take community opinion over this example (way/246325108).
Example, will you consider it as a valid name addition? cc: @julcnx @nitinatsangsit

I do not consider this as a valid name addition. This road should be tagged with Roadref. ปท.3023 only.


@Saikat_Maiti: I agree with @Mark_B; this example doesn’t constitute a valid road name. The DRR/DOH sign only serves as a reference number. If there’s no official route name available, your renderer or router should give priority to the ref tag.

Adding the reference number as the name doesn’t provide any additional value, and this reference number could potentially change if the road is transferred to local authorities, resulting in unnecessary maintenance.


That sign provide a ref, not a name, so it should only be tagged in the ref tag. Agree with above comments.

Unfortunately not just a few cases. The Bangkok area shows 1874 ways (segments) for ‘Rural Road’ in the name tag.

These names will probably need to be removed. For some of these roads the Ref. number is missing.

1 Like

Hello Everyone,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. I have updated my team on the same, we will not add any name tag where actually it is referring to ref tag.

Our team will work on reverting name addition. Thank you again for your feedback.
cc: @julcnx; @nitinatsangsit


Came across one the other day, & a bit of late opinion but agree with Mark_B and others … the name tag should never be used for the road ref.
I will also revert as I stumble on them.