Understanding the verdict tiers
Every name you propose gets a verdict on a 0–100 risk score. The score is a weighted blend of phonetic-similarity features (Soundex / Double Metaphone), string-similarity ratios, and a handful of deterministic rule bonuses. Three tiers map to three paths forward.
APPROVED — risk < 60
No conflicts at the review tier or higher. The name is clean against every existing road in the centerline and every active catalog member.
What you can do: reserve it. The propose page shows a "Request reservation" form — on staff approval the name is yours for the requested period (typically 90 days, max 270).
Example: proposing ZEPHYR LN against an
inventory of unrelated names — no phonetic neighbors, no
catalog conflicts, lands at risk 0.0.
NEEDS_REVIEW — risk 60–75
The name is similar to an existing road or catalog member, but not a clear-cut conflict. Common causes:
- Final-vowel difference — ABACA vs ABACO PATH share base sounds and Double Metaphone code; a stressed 911 caller could conflate them.
- Initial-consonant-only difference (HENDERSON / BENDERSON) — the system tags this as address-range review required, with a stronger banner explaining the rule.
- Pluralization or minor ending difference (OAK / OAKS) — staff judgment call.
What you can do: the propose page shows a "Request review" form. Submit a request and addressing staff will weigh the conflict against your project's specifics. Including MSAG community or planned address range in your notes makes first-pass approval much more likely — see the policy box on the propose page itself.
Example: proposing BENDERSON LN against
existing HENDERSON LN — lands at NEEDS_REVIEW
with the address-range banner. Approval is appropriate when the
two roads will be in different MSAG communities, or in the same
MSAG but with non-overlapping address ranges separated by 1000+
numbers.
REJECTED — risk ≥ 75
The name is too close to a real road or active catalog member. The system blocks it from progressing without intervention.
What you can do depends on what the conflict is:
- Conflict against an existing road — no submission path. The road exists in the field; you can't reserve a name that conflicts with it. Pick a more distinctive name.
- Conflict against an unused catalog candidate — the propose page shows a "Request to supersede" form. Catalog candidates that haven't been reserved by anyone are retractable; on staff approval, the cataloged candidate is retired and your name is reserved.
Example 1: proposing N MAIN ST against
existing MAIN ST (centerline) — rejected at
80, no path forward.
Example 2: proposing EAGLE LAKES against
cataloged EAGLE LAKE ROAD (status: AVAILABLE)
— rejected at 75, but the supersession form lets you
explicitly request to retire EAGLE LAKE ROAD in favor of
EAGLE LAKES.
What about the catalog-match cases?
If you type a name that's already in the catalog — either
exactly (DABNEY STREET) or in an alias-equivalent form
(DABNEY ST, or just DABNEY with no street
type) — the system routes you to the cataloged row and shows
the standard reservation form. The verdict will say "matches
catalog row 'X' (only the street type differs)" with the canonical
name surfaced. Submitting reserves the catalog row, not your typed
form.
Note: this only works for true alias pairs (ST/STREET, DR/DRIVE,
AVE/AV/AVENUE, RD/ROAD, etc.). DABNEY DR against
cataloged DABNEY STREET is not auto-routed
— DR and STREET are different street-type words. You'd see
a regular REJECTED verdict and can use the supersession form to
explicitly request retiring DABNEY STREET if that's what you want.