Jump to content

UK Post Code searches

Eclectic Penguin

By Eclectic Penguin
in Website

Followers 1

Recommended Posts

Eclectic Penguin

+Eclectic Penguin

Posted
Posted

For a few weeks now, I've observed that post code searches for UK locations are turning up quite strange and inaccurate results.

 

While the previous searches didn't necessarily find the nearest caches, it rarely had more than half a mile of inaccuracy.

 

Now, searches are way out. Locations up to 10 miles from the actual post code are being returned. For example, putting in my own post code and the actual cache that's nearest to my house eventually turns up about 3 pages into the search. Caches aren't exactly dense in my area as its quite rural - I imagine this search could be almost impossible to use in urban settings!

 

Apologies if this has been brought up before - I started a thread on the UK forum and was told that this was the appropriate place to bring up the subject.

Link to comment
JeremyR

+JeremyR

Posted
Posted (edited)
Apologies if this has been brought up before - I started a thread on the UK forum and was told that this was the appropriate place to bring up the subject.

This is an issue that's getting quite a lot of attention in the UK forum but threads raised about it here seem to be going unnoticed. It would be nice if a lackey would say "yep, we know", please! ;)

 

Anyway, you think ten miles out is an issue, my old UK postcode, which should show caches in and around Lancaster, England, is instead showing caches about 40 mile ENE of Munich, Germany, about 700 miles out! :(

 

(edit to add) perhaps if duplicate postal codes in different countries is becoming an issue, we should be able to state which country's postcode system we're searching against?

Edited by JeremyR
Link to comment
MisterBen

+MisterBen

Posted
Posted (edited)

I've found appending ", UK" to the search (e.g. "SW1A 1AA, UK") helps the more extreme cases.

 

It seems it sometimes matches the first part of the postcode to a road or something else in another country. For example a lot of North London postcodes end up in another country where N is used as a road prefix. It's a shame what is entered isn't parsed a bit more intelligently to check the whole string. A UK postcode is a quite recognisable and unique pattern that a regular expression can find.

 

It doesn't help the general inaccuracy though. I rarely find a search that gets it exactly right, it's usually within ±750m.

 

N5 1LP is the postcode for Arsenal tube station. A search for that lands you in Belgium.

N5 1LP, UK gets you about 450 meters south of the station.

 

Compare this to Google Maps (Google's site, not the geocaching.com page using their API); a search there for N5 1LP lands you spot on, whether using the .com or the .co.uk site.

 

I have heard the official UK postcode geographical database is very expensive to licence. I guess geocaching.com uses a different source that's not very accurate:

 

Highbury and Islington (N5 1RA) and Arsenal (N5 1LP) put you on the same spot, as do Caledonian Road (N7 9BA) and Holloway Road (N7 8HS).

Edited by MisterBen
Link to comment
Eclectic Penguin

+Eclectic Penguin

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Adding the ", UK" after the post code doesn't make much difference in my area - it only seems to help improve search results that were coming back with completely different countries.

 

AUK post code (e.g. SA1 1QQ) can pinpoint to street accuracy. However, after experimentation, the search is now completely ignoring the second part of the post code, reducing the accuracy from street accuracy to being withing a town or two's accuracy.

 

I used to set up pocket queries by Googling the post code of the area's post office and found this was more than adequate. Now, even the same PQs provide some very strange clusters- sometimes with NO caches listed in the desired search results.

 

Added to the fact that most British mapping uses the OSGB National Grid coordinate system, getting Lat-Long adds several levels of complexity to setting up searches.

 

Please go back to the previous database you were using - it may have been out by up to a mile, but at least it provided credible search results.

 

Has there been an acknowledgement of this problem in another thread? If not, is it possible please for at least an acknowledgement that the problem exists from GS and what they're doing about it?

Edited by Eclectic Penguin
Link to comment
JeremyR

+JeremyR

Posted
Posted
AUK post code (e.g. SA1 1QQ) can pinpoint to street accuracy. However, after experimentation, the search is now completely ignoring the second part of the post code, reducing the accuracy from street accuracy to being withing a town or two's accuracy.

I wonder if this is a misunderstanding of the British postcode system by Groundspeak (or their geocoding service). So perhaps it's worth pointing out that 6/7 character British postcodes are about as precise as Zip+4 in the US, giving a 'resolution' of about 5-15 houses. However, the first portion of a British postcode covers an area typically much larger than a 5-figure US Zip code so dropping so just submitting the first portion to the geocoder will not return anywhere near accurate results for the majority of people.

 

Since I'm sure that postcode lookups are one of the most common ways that people set up their PQs and searches, I'd hope you guys can un-break this one soon!

 

Has there been an acknowledgement of this problem in another thread? If not, is it possible please for at least an acknowledgement that the problem exists from GS and what they're doing about it?

Not that I've seen so I guess we keep banging the drum :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Corey

+Corey

Posted
Posted
Since I'm sure that postcode lookups are one of the most common ways that people set up their PQs and searches, I'd hope you guys can un-break this one soon!

I find that interesting since I never run a PQ from a zipcode - I like using the "Create Pocket Query" button on the map.

Link to comment
Eclectic Penguin

+Eclectic Penguin

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Having spoken to other British geocachers, the most common way of getting a pocket query for an unfamiliar area is to quickly find the post code of the area's main post office (very easily obtained as the Post Office are so full on about using the post code).

 

Currently, this doesn't work as you're likely to get *no* caches in the area you're selecting!

Link to comment
uktim

+uktim

Posted
Posted
Since I'm sure that postcode lookups are one of the most common ways that people set up their PQs and searches, I'd hope you guys can un-break this one soon!

 

Is it really so common? I hardly ever use a postcode to search for caches. If I'm going somewhere and a search by name doesn't do the job I tend to look up the co-ordinates rather than the postcode. Most caches I visit are in rural areas where a postcode is a somewhat vague way of defining a location :D

Link to comment
Eclectic Penguin

+Eclectic Penguin

Posted
  • Author
Posted

As others have pointed out, theoretically a zip code search in the US is far less accurate than a UK 7 character post code search, so I can understand why people wouldn't necessarily search on zip code or understand how useful the UK post code search was.

 

Prior to the change, using the UK post code was a fantastic and quick way to find caches at a given location without having to work out lat & long (UK topo maps use the Ordnance Survey grid rather than lat long). It's very easy to google a place name to find nearby post office addresses and work from there. While the post code database used by Geoaching wasn't as accurate as some, typically, it got you within a mile of the desired address, perfectly adequate for most searches.

 

The first section of a UK post code usually narrows you down to a district (typically within 10 miles, or a 100 square mile area, smaller for built up areas). Adding the last 3 digits and you're accurate to within 10-15 houses (or when it comes to a post office, often to a single building), regardless of district size.

 

After some experimentation, it's now obvious to me that the last digits are, although required to make the search recognise it as a UK post code (though even this doesn't always work now), these are then chopped off making the search wildly inaccurate.

 

Can we please go back to the old system - or at least have an explanation why the old relatively accurate system was replaced by a new, virtually unusable post code search?

Link to comment
Eclectic Penguin

+Eclectic Penguin

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hm. I just tried it and I noticed that when you go to geocaching.com and enter a UK postcode, for instance:

 

"GU1 4NG"

 

It gives me caches in Germany.

 

However, when I click "Advanced Search", it will produce caches very close to that location.

 

Appending ,UK (e,g, GU1 4NG, UK) solves the country problem but doesn't solve the general inaccuracy.

Link to comment
elfez

+elfez

Posted
Posted

I share your disappointment - I am one of those who use postcodes for searches but after several years of satisfactory searches I find the current situation makes postcode searches completely useless.

 

Make that another rather annoyed user. And now that I'm paid up again I (shockingly enough) have some expectation that they actually unbreak it again :P

Link to comment
elfez

+elfez

Posted
Posted

Oh,and as a brief followup: Post code searches actually seem to work from http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx. Which exposes another of my annoyances with gc.com: The site layout is, how shall I put it, less than optimal. To get to the above link you have to do a (broken) postcode search, then click on "New search". Why this isn't there in the first place is a mystery.

 

Oh well, at least I get to partake in the national pastime of whinging :P

Link to comment
Corey

+Corey

Posted
Posted

Oh,and as a brief followup: Post code searches actually seem to work from http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx. Which exposes another of my annoyances with gc.com: The site layout is, how shall I put it, less than optimal. To get to the above link you have to do a (broken) postcode search, then click on "New search". Why this isn't there in the first place is a mystery.

 

Oh well, at least I get to partake in the national pastime of whinging :P

You can also get to that page by clicking on the "Advanced Search" link at the bottom of the "Hide and Seek" page.

Link to comment
Delta68

+Delta68

Posted
Posted (edited)

The farcical post code search on the HOME PAGE is an embarrassment to the site and Groundspeak ought to be ashamed of it!

 

It's the first thing a newcomer would try and it gives results HUNDREDS OF MILES OUT!!!

 

According to the post code search on the home page, the my nearest cache is:

 

NW 292.3mi from your home coordinates

 

Little wonder that anyone I mention the hobby to hasn't taken it up!

 

<_<:D

 

 

M

 

Edited for spelling :D

Edited by Delta68
Link to comment
Happy Humphrey

+Happy Humphrey

Posted
Posted (edited)

It's the first thing a newcomer would try and it gives results HUNDREDS OF MILE OUT!!!

...sometimes. Sometimes it doesn't work at all. Sometimes it's only a few miles out. I agree that as it's the No. 1 feature on the web site it should be given some priority. It's odd that the Advanced Search on postcode works but the processing behind this can't be used as the fix.

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment
vw_k

+vw_k

Posted
Posted

I must admit I'm very disappointed at the complete lack of response with regard to this problem. Even an acknowledgement would have been nice.

 

It gives the impression that Groundspeak don't really care about the problem and can't be bothered to do anything to fix it.

 

Welcome to caching in any country that isn't America!

 

I tried using postcode search on geocachings WAP service (another joke!) and was told that the nearest cache was 3 miles away, on checking google map once I got home I discovered there were caches as near as 100 metres away that didn't come up in the results!

 

Whilst on the subject of WAP, it would be really useful if the search by co-ordinates function worked on the same datum/arrangement that geocaching.com uses, as I've tried searching for caches on WAP when in unfamiliar areas and not been able to enter co-ords.

Link to comment
Happy Humphrey

+Happy Humphrey

Posted
Posted

As this appears to get no attention from Groundspeak, it might be worth looking in the UK section, where there are also frequent queries about why postcodes don't work.

 

This post gives some evidence that the reason behind the inconsistency (and sometimes wild inaccuracy) of the postcode search is because it uses a faulty Google search. Using Advanced Search returns different results and these seem fairly satisfactory. Clearly this latter search is NOT using the Google facility.

 

Why can't both searches (which are meant to do the same thing) use the same routine (the better one preferably)?

Link to comment
ivanidea

+ivanidea

Posted
Posted (edited)

Perhaps all the GS staff are reading the UK forums, looking for some threads to close! :laughing:

 

When I revisited this site last year, I typed in my postcode and found that there were loads of caches in the area, and subsequently joined. When I first investigated caching back in 2000, there were only a handful in the UK, so I didn't investigate further.

 

I have just typed in my postcode, and it now shows me caches in Indiana. This would not encourage me to investigate further.

 

The point is, if a newcomer can not easily see if there are any caches in their area, then they will probably not join. If I am going to another area, I will search using the postcode of where I am staying, which should be more precise than trying to search by city name, especially when you stay in the outskirts.

 

Come on GS, please present a professional image to the outside world. You usually only have one chance to impress.

 

Ivan

Edited by ivanidea
Link to comment
JABs

+JABs

Posted
Posted

Hi guys from Down under, We to found that this was an issue but also found a way around.

By typing not only the postcode but also the state we found that the search worked.

EG. by typing 2777 NSW, we got Springwood in New South Wales, which is the correct location.

I hope this finds a way to help you guys out.

Link to comment
4 Badgers

+4 Badgers

Posted
Posted

...............I have just typed in my postcode, and it now shows me caches in Indiana. This would not encourage me to investigate further.

 

The point is, if a newcomer can not easily see if there are any caches in their area, then they will probably not join. If I am going to another area, I will search using the postcode of where I am staying, which should be more precise than trying to search by city name, especially when you stay in the outskirts...............

I gave this a try for my home postcode and it shows me caches in Germany <_< yet when I joined GC.com in 2006 it was based on a postcode search that I took up the hobby.

 

Is there any explanation as to why this issue is occurring and why it hasn't yet been addressed? :lol:B)

Link to comment
Telkman

+Telkman

Posted
Posted (edited)

Although there are means to get around the poor postcode handling and at least let it search the right country, it's still not at all accurate!

 

Easiest thing I've found is to use Streemap's converter to produce a lat/long to search with on GC.com - only drawback is the obvious lack of accuracy when a postcode covers a large area.

 

Input your postcode and then copy the decimal formats of the lat/long (in brackets) into the GC search page:

 

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/streetmap.dll?G...p;name=E1%201AA

Edited by Telkman
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 1
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...