On 24/11/2008 19:32, Ben Laenen wrote: > On Monday 24 November 2008, David Earl wrote: >> I'm also reconsidering adding "in" as well as "near" (and comma) as >> the separator. The problem is that there are a couple of place names >> in England which have "In" in their names - Henley-In-Arden for >> example. (A second problem is that since it works only by proximity, >> "in" will yeild things that are wildly not "in" somewhere, but that's >> outweighed by what people naturally type, I think). > > I think that any search for "in" is better if it will give results that > are "near" (but not "in") as well (googlemaps does that for example), > so I don't see that as a problem really. > > "near" is also unnatural to use when you look for a location "in" a > place, as it seems to exclude anything that's in it.
My thinking exactly. The only reason I didn't do this originally is because of the ambiguity in those unusual place names. David _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk