The internal systematization of urbanonyms is the aim of this paper. The comprehensiveness of urbanonyms was taken as a starting point. K. Handke’s and Z. Zagórski’s studies attempted to show the differences between some kinds of urbanonyms. For this purpose, seven parameters of classification were considered: the type of connection names and their designation, the way of naming, the particular groups of urbanonym functions, the name genre profiles, as well as their geographical distribution and typical naming structures and motivation. The analysis shows six types of urbanonym subgroups, though the communicational names, residential area names, and the artificially islanded names are the most similar to each other. Furthermore, there are names of uninhabited places and the names of buildings. The institutional names, being featured with the specific structure, functions, genologic characterization, etc., form the border between urbanonyms, as well.