> You may need to revise that need. The API Geocoder geocodes addresses > to locations, plus a few other odd things. Lid Park isn't a mailing > address; whether or not you get results you approve of is really just > chance. It's no good for finding rivers or lakes either. Local > searches businesses and institutions as well.
The V3 API Geocoder, unlike Google Local, gives you back LatLngBounds for the geocoded location, plus a bunch of other useful data. That's why we need to use it and cannot use Google Local. True: Lid Park isn't a mailing address, but neither are "Central Park, NYC", "Discovery Park, Seattle" nor "Golden Gate Park"; yet the API Geocoder finds them beautifully -- with precise bounds and all. Not to mention that one of the possible location_types returned by the Geocoder API is "park", which suggests that the Geocoder isn't limited to just mailing addresses. And then there's the fact that prior to Tuesday's update, Lid Park used to come back with the expected results. So while any result one gets back is really just chance, there are some reasonable expectations (ignoring for a moment the irony of mentioning "expectations" when talking about a service Google provides to us for free). > It has to be said that if you know where it is you don't need to > geocode it ? :) Because we're implementing a map search function. Lid Park just happens to factor into one of our demos and test scenarios. So ever since Lid Park stopped geocoding properly, our automated tests have been failing :( --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Maps API" group. To post to this group, send email to google-maps-api@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-maps-api+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-maps-api?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
