On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Matthew Somerville <[email protected]>wrote:
> 80n wrote: > > They first assigned it to Spelthorne, probably because someone read my > > description as Walton Bridge Road. Spelthorne immediately assigned it > > to Elmbridge because someone looked at it on the map. > > Indeed, as you imply, the boundary is marked on the map - it's the thick > black line. The pin you placed is clearly on the Elmbridge side of the > border (so the East Area of Surrey). > > > It then became a highways thing and got bounced between East and West > > Surrey as they couldn't decide which bit of Bridge Street it was in. > > I assume Bridge Street was the automatically generated address as > > it's nowhere near the location of the problem. > > The closest address to the pin you left for the problem report you're > referring to was 1 The Ridgeway, Walton-On-Thames, 28m away and pretty > accurate for where you were reporting. Bridge Street was not mentioned > anywhere. > > > Perhaps the automatically generated address could be presented to the > > user as well as the council. It explains why my council often responds > > very oddly to these problem reports. > > From the sound of it, it really doesn't :) > In which case the council really *is* as incompetent as I thought they were ;) It doesn't really change my point which is that if you are telling the council something that the user doesn't see then there is an increased possibility of confusion and misunderstanding. Is there any reason why this derived address cannot be shown to the user, preferrably *before* the report is sent to the council? 80n > > ATB, > Matthew > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list [email protected] > Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
