On 31 August 2016 at 21:59, Russell Nelson <russnel...@gmail.com> wrote: > I speculate (from observing the workings of plus.codes) that the point is > the plus sign. When an address parser sees it, BING, it knows that it should > look on both sides for [0-9A-Za-z] to create a plus code. And if not, then > it never interprets it as a plus code, even if the string has no spaces and > consists of only [0-9A-Za-z].
"Chicago" consists only of [0-9A-Za-z], but I expect you wouldn't want that to be interpreted as an Open Location Code. And even if you stick to the alphabet used in the OLC (without AEIOU, among others), "Cwm" is a village in Wales, for example. How should Google's address parser identify a location as an OLC without the plus, without too many false positives? Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton <philip.new...@gmail.com> -- Public site: http://www.openlocationcode.com/ Github project: https://github.com/google/open-location-code Demo site: http://plus.codes/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "open-location-code" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to open-location-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send an email to open-location-code@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/open-location-code. To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/open-location-code/CA%2BcwSm9_LgPaSA%2BvmViZ%3DEnYkOBKyjKo3mW%2BjdMsi1HaWB28%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
