On Dec 1, 5:07 pm, Rossko <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well actually XY2 19AB is invalid. Postcodes only have one digit in > > the second half, so it's always possible to insert the space correctly > > as the fourth character from the right. > > Sure, we know that, but if the geocoder is presented with a string > that is not a valid postcode format, results could be unpredictable. > Should we expect it search for XY2 or XY21 ? If it is looking for a > non-existent XY21, should it consider XY20 a closer match than XY2 ? > Should it treat it as a postcode at all, and instead find a building > address, 19A or even 219A ? Its just a variant of GIGO.
Have you tried it? Searching for "CA65,UK" which is a valid district format, gives a location in California. That's reasonable if that particular district doesn't actually exist. If it's asked for, say, BN21AA, it should insert the space as the fourth character from the right to look for BN2 1AA and presumably return the result for BN2, not BN21. Giving it a postcode which doesn't exist, like CA651AA [1AA is almost always valid] yields a "Not found" error. I think the parsing is sensible; but having derived which postcode to geocode the results leave something to be desired, as Issue 1179 attests. 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.
