On Jan 28, 9:53 am, Andrew Leach <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jan 28, 2:18 pm, 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." > > Admittedly, anthropomorphising a gecoder may not be the best thing to > do, but what I wrote was "how well **it thinks** it's done". That is, > an accuracy may indicate "I've tried to interpret what you gave me and > I've come up with something for which I'm confident about the state" > or "...the town" or "...the premises". You're right that it doesn't > say anything about correctness, but if you don't specify which > "Cameron" you mean, it has very little to go on and arguably any > "Cameron" is correct, including either of the two in Scotland.
Docs: "Note that these accuracy values only indicate the expected resolution. They do not indicate the confidence level of the geocode." Again, you are confusing two concepts. It does not indicate that it is "confident" about anything, or "how well **it thinks** it's done" about anything. There is no quality/confidence/worth of results/how well it's done indicator. Are you saying it's confident about the accuracy level? Results have a pre-determined accuracy level already. That's like saying you're confident that water is wet. True, "arguably" any result worldwide for which the geocoder can match any one word in the search term is "correct." I bet Google has the ability to return a result with one word that matches for just about any sequence of words in existence. If they did, would they all be "correct?" "Arguably" yes they would. But that would be silly, which might be why they are a little more discerning. There already exists a line it won't cross in terms of result quality. I just think the line is too lenient. You don't. No problem. > The geocoder geocodes what you give it; it doesn't do business > searches, so finding a library called "Cameron Village Library" won't > be reliable. It interprets that as a postal address and attempts to > get what it can out of it, providing metadata which may help you judge > the worth of the result. In that case, the accuracy is 6 -- "I've > found something which matches the street". Since you haven't actually > given a street, it could well be suspect. The point is that the > geocoder assumes that whatever it's given *is* an address, and > attempts to use it on that basis. That's incorrect, it does do business searches. That's level 9 - "Premise (building name, property name, shopping center, etc.) level accuracy." So saying it interprets everything as an address is not right. Google knows better than I do whether the user has given a "street" or "drive" or "avenue" or whatever that translates to in dozens of other languages I don't speak. Which leads me back to the question you did not answer: "With all of the address formats on the planet, how do you propose we recognize what is an address and what is not?" I am already trying to use the metadata to judge as best I can the "worth" of the result, hence the 2 methods I described earlier. > Having said that, it does attempt some sanity checking, and adding > something like "Village" appears to bias the results to township > level. There was a similar case recently where it was necessary to add > "Ville" in France. Adding other things will confuse that > functionality. Neither time did it return a "township level" result. What it returned are streets. If it had returned a township that would have been more sensible. > If you don't like how the geocoder works, you are welcome to try > others. Why repeat what every body already knows? Either way, I am going to express my opinion, just like you express your opinion because this is a discussion group. Nothing personal. Is that ok with you, sir? :-) -- 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.
