North Yorkshire Council to phase out apostrophe use on street signs

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

North Yorkshire’s plan to remove apostrophes from new street signs, citing a national geographic data standard, has triggered pushback from people who see it as bending everyday language to fit flawed software and ambiguous rules. Commenters argue that modern databases and standards should easily support punctuation and diverse characters, warning that the change disrespects personal and place names and repeats a broader pattern of technology and closed standards dictating how humans write and record information.

Reason for change & standards debate

  • Several commenters trace the decision to British Standard BS 7666 and related guidance for address/street “gazetteers.”
  • Excerpts from guidance show a key nuance: editors shouldn’t add punctuation that isn’t in the official name, but punctuation is allowed when it is part of the designated name (e.g., “Dr Newton’s Way”).
  • This leads many to argue the council is misreading the standard or using it as a convenient excuse.
  • A commercial body (GeoPlace) is cited as “preferring” data without punctuation for machine readability and emergency-system search, which commenters broadly criticize as weak justification.

Technical criticisms (databases, encoding, SQL injection)

  • Many argue modern databases and software can handle apostrophes and other special characters if queries are parameterized and encodings handled properly.
  • The move is widely mocked as a sign of insecure or poorly designed systems (“tell me you’re vulnerable to SQL injection…”).
  • Others note that apostrophes can complicate CSV, exports, multiple apostrophe characters, and fuzzy search, but still see removal as an overreaction.
  • Some suggest simple schema solutions: a machine-readable key plus a separate “sign name” with full punctuation.

Language, names, and inclusivity

  • Strong concern that dropping apostrophes disrespects people whose names include them (e.g., many Irish surnames) and may prevent accurately naming streets after such people.
  • Similar issues are noted for diacritics and non-ASCII characters; some government systems still cannot handle accents or non-Latin scripts.
  • There is an extended side-thread arguing over correct possessive forms like “Thomas’” vs. “Thomas’s,” illustrating how contentious and fluid apostrophe rules already are.

Precedents & signage practice

  • Australia’s long-standing removal of apostrophes from official place names is cited as precedent, with mixed day‑to‑day adherence and some confusion (e.g., “Princes” vs. “Princess”).
  • Some note that many UK areas already omit apostrophes on signs; others lament the loss as harming literacy and respect for language.

Data standards, licensing, and open data

  • Paid and closed standards (BS 7666, ISO specs, smartcard standards) draw criticism; several argue that anything mandatory for public bodies should be freely accessible.
  • OpenStreetMap is mentioned as taking physical signs as “ground truth,” so any signage change propagates to widely used open data.
  • Some worry about a broader pattern: instead of fixing tools and standards, authorities bend physical reality and language to fit brittle software.