On Jan 28, 5:33 am, Andrew Leach <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jan 28, 3:17 am, Jake <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Examples: > > Cameron Village => Cameron, Tuckerman, AR 72473, USA > > Cameron Village Library => Cameron Dr, Norfolk, ON, Canada > > The geocoder geocodes addresses. If you give it something, it will do > what it can with it (and return an Accuracy result to indicate how > well it thinks it's done). It's not an address validator.
An accuracy level does NOT indicate "how well its done" and is useless for that purpose. From the docs: "This value indicates the resolution of the given result, but not necessarily the correctness of the result." I really don't care if it validates addresses or not. > If you use a single text-box, you *either* need to do your > discrimination *before* passing what is actually an address to the > geocoder (that is, *you* decide what is an address and what needs to > be passed elsewhere), *or* you need to interpret the Accuracy returned > by the gecoder. There are other geocoders which might do a worse job > at guessing what you mean. Again, that's not what "accuracy" means. And, with all of the address formats on the planet, how do you propose we recognize what is an address and what is not? I'm willing to entertain any idea as long as it is actually feasible. For every geocoder, there exists -some- cutoff point at which it does not return a result for a given search term. My argument is about where that point should be. Even if the text box was strictly for addresses, the user can type whatever they want and they don't always type in something perfect. Some people may think that as long as a (street, address, or intersection) result matches one word out of the search term, it is useful. Or that returning something is always better than nothing. Other people may argue that this approach is detrimental rather than helpful because it is almost certainly NOT what the user is looking for. Although I am part of the latter group, you may think otherwise. No problem. :-) > I've no idea what the G_ACCURACY_* values you quote mean. There are no > constants like that within the API. My mistake, those are my personal constants. I should have referred to 1-9. -- 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.
