Checking the postcode isn't a bad idea - I'll try that.
On Oct 29, 4:17 pm, Andrew Leach <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Oct 29, 3:05 pm, Jonathan del Strother <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Recently, the service seems to have changed : for example, looking up
> > (51.501000,-0.077958) used to return a series of placemarks with
> > accuracy ranging from 1 to 8, and we'd be able to figure out that the
> > general area was Southwark, London. It now returns 9 placemarks, all
> > of which have an accuracy of 8 or 9, which seems too detailed to
> > reliably get location areas from.
>
> Reverse geocoding finds *addresses* from a location. So it does the
> best it can to do that.
>
> > Is there any way of requesting lower accuracies?
>
> What you might be able to do is loop through the placemarks and use
> the first LocalityName, which is Camberwell for your example. That's a
> bit inaccurate in this case; it's nowhere near Camberwell! If there
> isn't a LocalityName, then taking the first part of AddressLine may
> suffice [up to the first comma]; that returns Bermondsey, which is
> better.
>
> Or: find a postcode which is returned in the results, like SE1 2, and
> then geocode that. That still comes up with a LocalityName of
> Camberwell, but SubAdministrativeAreaName of Southwark.
>
> Andrew
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
