MikeS wrote:
> I have a question......
> I have built a system that works perfectly when the getlocations()
> works, however I have been getting a number of complaints from users
> of failed searches. After some investigation into this I have come up
> with the following,
>
> 1: When attempting to geocode a full postal address, as entered by the
> user, the getlocations() search does not like it when the city and
> county are the same, as in "Derby, Derbyshire" or "Nottingham,
> Nottinghamshire" or "Oxford, Oxfordshire". To overcome this I am
> filtering out the county from the search address and it works
> perfectly.

http://www.geocodezip.com/example_geo2.asp?addr1=Nottingham,%20Nottinghamshire&addr2=Derby,%20Derbyshire&geocode=1&geocode=2

I don't see a problem with those examples.  Perhaps you could provide
examples that fail (and maybe even a link to your map...)



>
> 2: When attempting to search on the full address and the search code
> does not appear to have the street level address in the database it
> just fails, rather than stepping up a level to the locality (area/town
> etc) Which is a real pain as it means I have have to do the step up
> myself which in turn means 2 calls to the getlocations() code......
>
> 1: What is the problem with having a city/locality the same as the
> county?
>
> 2 Why does the search engine code not do the step back in the address
> itself rather than me having to (frequently it seems) do a second call
> to the search engine which then works, thus increasing the calls to
> the engine?
>
> Currently I am now having to filter out both the county AND street
> levels in the passed address to prevent the search failing and my
> system making multiple calls for what are  the same addresses to
> overcome this! Doing this however comes at a cost, resulting in wildly
> inaccurate maker locations (up to a mile depending on the locality!)
> for what were normally very accurate (to within 20m) when it found the
> address, simply because of the logic fault in the search engine to
> take a fallback position itself when a street level search
> fails........
>
> I am going about this incorrectly, have I missed something? ...... I
> am not posting a link as the system is in a registered users area and
> this is not a coding problem on my part , but from my understanding, a
> logic flaw in the getlocations() search engine code.
>
> Can someone enlighten me please......
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Google Maps API" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Maps-API?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to