Max1234Ita writes:
> 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.
Just to give a contrary opinion, I like the new search. In NM, US,
the new search seems a lot easier to use than the old multi-step
search, and is much more likely to find useful matches. The default
in a localized search seems to be to sort by distance from wherever
the map is showing, which is almost always what I want. If I zoom
way out and look for a town, it generally shows the town first
before the smaller matches, as it should; I wonder why it does
something different in the Roma case. Maybe there's a bug that only
shows up in some areas, and that's why some people are having so
much trouble with new search.
...Akkana
--
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.
