I’m a little confused about road name changes. If there is no junction it’s simple - you have two connected roads, each with different names, they connect at the point the name changes.
The problem is if there is e.g. a T-junction at the point of the name change. Then it’s not clear in the map that two of these form a single road, with the third one having to give way on entry. So if someone was travelling down the road, passing the T-junction, a sat nav system might say ‘turn left’ here, when the person doesn’t need to turn at all! Not a disaster, but not ideal.
An obvious work around is to put the name change as a separate node just after the T-junction, but there’s probably a better way of doing it.
Can you point us to the T-junction where this happens? Also the planned route? Did you try alternative routers to make sure that the problem is in the data and not in your sat nav?
AFAIK, there is no way to express how the main road (e.g. same reference number) continues after a junction. At this moment, we assume that the makers of the navigation app solve this problem.
I remember seeing a proposal a long time ago that would help to solve this problem. It was some relation that expressed how the road continues (and it was not https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:connectivity))
Yes! type=through_route is exactly what I’m talking about. Disappointing that it’s not implemented, and that (I assume) no equivalent thing was added to the junction relation.
For an example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.13097/-4.21998 the two tertiary roads (georgeham road and st mary’s road) are actually one continuous road, with the residential road (st mary’s road) joins the tertiary road at a T-junction. This is not clear from the OSM data.
and here’s an example that used to be the same issue, but I’ve recently added a workaround. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.46325/-1.03935 as you can see, the southern arm of armour road is the same road as lower armour road, but this wasn’t clear prior to my recent edit.