I agree too. Actually, the new search would not be that bad... if only it allowed some kind of sorting of the found matches. The example I always make is: "In Italy, try displaying Rome city by just typing "Roma" in the search box." In that case, "Rome - city" is correctly found... among something like 15000 other matches (in Italy it is very easy to find something which has "Roma" in its name, not only streets and squares, but also villages and many other things)
The correct behaviour would be that search results are sorted "by importance" (cities first, then towns, villages, streets and POI) and/or the user has the ability to filter them in order to find what he/she needs. Hope this can be implemented (soon). Regards, Max - Italy On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 2:52:55 PM UTC+2, Harry van der Wolf wrote: > > So do I. > In some cases the full text search did not even given an address and then > you could only use the classic search. > > Harry > > Op di 2 okt. 2018 om 14:50 schreef Max <[email protected] > <javascript:>>: > >> >> Legacy search was better, there is no need for removing it. >>> >> >> I fully agree. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Osmand" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Osmand" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
