Correction. Issues 1872 and 1895 are different since they're attempting to utilize issue geocoding requests via JSONP, which is not a supported means to do client-side geocoding.
Issue 1902 on the other hand looks, smells and sounds like a quota limit. I'm currently investigating As Andy pointed out, stars are in fact important, and we do use them to help gauge which issues are most impacting. On Nov 9, 7:35 am, ehierhager <[email protected]> wrote: > Ah, good catch. I saw the 400 error on > requestinghttp://maps.google.com/maps/geo > with the callback parameter and assumed it was the same thing. > Slightly different problem I guess. > > On Nov 8, 3:04 pm, Rossko <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > same defect posted here as > > > well:http://code.google.com/p/gmaps-api-issues/issues/detail?id=1872 > > > ehierhager: I'm not sure that is quite the same. Those folk are using > > the geocoder in undocumented ways, and are perhaps being deliberately > > blocked. However, something unusual about your particular network > > means you are getting caught in the crossfire when using the > > documented method e.g. Googles example. -- 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.
