Problems using search by address or postal code

[+dinoklein]

Hi,

 

I have family in Germany that I visit on a regular basis. So every time I go there, I look up some caches that we can do during my visit.

 

I was trying to do this again. However, when I tried to search for the village: Jork (near Hamburg) it shows me the caches for York, England. It used to give me the right place, but apparently something has changed. Since the search is by address, I tried to put a streetname in as well, but it doesn't regognise this. As there is a possibility to put in a postal code, I thought I'd try that. Unfortunately, some place in Maryland, US seems to have the same postal code, so that doesn't work either. I will now look up the coordinates for Jork and search for caches that way, but for future searches in other areas it would be much easier to type in a street address or a city.

 

Maybe I'm just doing something wrong, so let me know if that's the case.

 

Kind regards,

Dinoklein

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

The easiest solution is to use as many "descriptives" as possible, rather than to just type in a city/area name.

 

Address, city, state/region, country, postal code, etc.

 

Relying on a single word/code has always been problematic. The search mechanism is part of the mapping program, which belongs to a third party, not Groundspeak or geocaching.com, so their ability to fix it is minimal if anything at all.

[+dinoklein]

Thanks for your reply

 

The problem is though, that anything more than a city name will give me an error code: "cannot determine a location for:..." I've tried several different addresses in Germany and they all produce the same error. I can get a result from my own address, but I think that's because my address and home coordinates are in my profile. The street next to mine produces an error and so do all other addresses I've tried. I didn't have this problem before. Just thought I'd bring the issue up.

 

I'll just search by locating a cache on the map near the centre where I want to search and use those coordinates for my search. It works, but it's not optimal.

[cachman9]

Yes, I have had the same problem. See the forum "address feature improvement." The summary is that the system does not recognize the location. Problem is, the software can not be updated to include the particular address. This is because Groundspeak does not own the software. So, this means there is nothing you can do.

[+Hynr]

If you go to Google maps and type in a name of a German town (including Jork) it is found readily.

 

If you visit https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/javascript/examples/geocoding-simple and type in Jork, Germany it geocodes it without any trouble at all.

 

That suggests to me that there is indeed something that can be done at the Groundspeak end.

[Moun10Bike]

If you go to Google maps and type in a name of a German town (including Jork) it is found readily.

 

If you visit https://developers.g...eocoding-simple and type in Jork, Germany it geocodes it without any trouble at all.

 

That suggests to me that there is indeed something that can be done at the Groundspeak end.

 

We don't use Google for our geocoding. Instead, we use a rotating panel of free open-source geocoders.

[+Hynr]

Most users would probably assume that since Google is being used for maps that it would also be used for geocoding. So this is not obvious. I suppose that this is due to the fact that Google is charging for the service.

 

OSM/Mapquest APi does return geocode data for the town in question:

http://open.mapquestapi.com/nominatim/v1/search?format=xml&q=Jork+Germany

So if this is not one of the services that is being used, then perhaps that offers a solution to the identified problem. If that is one of the services, then perhaps there is indeed a bug in the geocaching.com website code which could be remedied.

[Moun10Bike]

The MapQuest geocoder is the one that is predominant in our rotation and it does look like it should recognize Jork. I'll follow up with engineering on this.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The MapQuest geocoder is the one that is predominant in our rotation and it does look like it should recognize Jork. I'll follow up with engineering on this.

 

Out of curiosity, why do you rotate geocoding services? It seems to me that periodically changing services would inevitably lead to inconsistent results. One could enter Jork, Germany (which geonames also seems to recognize) and get a response and the next day get a "location not found" error when you'v switched to a different geocoder. BTW, I've been trying to find a good location lookup source for normalizing location information for about 500K records. I don't need it to actually geocode the locations but I'll have to take a look at Mapquest to see if it meets my needs.

 

 

[cachman9]

Hmm... I see NYpaddlecacher's point. But I think they rotate so they CAN give some locations an opportunity to use that feature. Also, try Google Earth. Geocaching.com provides a viewer so that you can see caches in your area.

[Moun10Bike]

Out of curiosity, why do you rotate geocoding services?

 

This is done to avoid hitting the limits imposed by the various geocoders.

[JPohaku]

While I appreciate all the workarounds provided in the forum, the issue is that as it sits the find "by address" does not function the way it used to. The bulk of the Groundspeak site is relatively intuitive and easy to use with the exception of the find by address function. Since the change in the mapping I have NEVER been able to do a find by address, no matter what address I input. It does seem to usually work with city & state though but that is often just not close enough. Yes I know there are a bunch on work arounds, but to someone just coming into the sport this would be a BIG turn off. (Since I do web design work I have a multitude of browsers I use to test with - it isn't a browser issue in case anyone thinks it might be.)

 

If the find by address doesn't work - remove it. If it only works for gross scale locations like city & state - then change the prompt to City & State - cause it sure won't take a street address. As it is, it is confusing and frustrating to people. I have already heard from several friends that dropped out of geocaching because they indicated it was too difficult to find caches when all they had was an address - especially when they were going on vacation or visiting someone. They don't want to go through a bunch of rigamarole to find caches.

 

Groundspeak - you really need to address this issue quickly, even if is is to simply remove or rename the by address prompt.

[Jayme H]

Yep, we recognize that this is a big problem for the community. Sorry for any confusion or frustration that has been caused by this. We are actively looking for a solution for this issue.

[+edscott]

I find it interesting frustrating that a town of 500 people and no caches is on the list while a nearby town with 10000 population and 10 geocaches is not..

 

Note that I was directed to this thread because a thread I'd opened regarding the reduction of town names in the search database was locked as a duplicate. Not the same as zip codes, but possibly has a common cause. ???

Edited February 1, 2014 by edscott

[+Geziefer]

Groundspeak - you really need to address this issue quickly, even if is is to simply remove or rename the by address prompt.

 

I fully suport JPohaku - the address search simply does not work and especially as a paying member of this site I expect the site provider to have such basic functionality - and the search was never good, and now is unusable. I would say that searching for a known country or city is something extremely basic which just has to work.

[+KSullivan]

Well, this explains why I used to be able to put an address in and get results, and now I can't. This is pretty frustrating. How can you plan vacation caching when the mapping software doesn't even recognize the town? Maybe if Groundspeak shared which mapping service they were using, we would know whether to waste our time with a search or not. Maybe mapping companies would improve too. I hope this is resolved soon.

[+PeachofWA]

Well, this explains why I used to be able to put an address in and get results, and now I can't. This is pretty frustrating. How can you plan vacation caching when the mapping software doesn't even recognize the town? Maybe if Groundspeak shared which mapping service they were using, we would know whether to waste our time with a search or not. Maybe mapping companies would improve too. I hope this is resolved soon.

 

I was just about to post a question about problems I'm having with addresses on a trip we are about to make, but I see it appears to be a common problem. I sure hope they can correct this soon, as it certainly was great to type in an address, and get all caches located close to that particular address. I was able to convert the addresses to Latitude/Longitude and get around it that way, but it certainly is much more work.

[Turnstones]

I've always used the search by Post Code facility which until recently worked fine, but now it does not even recognise my home Post Code. There were problems with this function some years ago when it gave German locations for UK Post Codes and that was eventually fixed.

This current problem means there is no quick and convenient way of searching for caches in the area I expect to be visiting as the suggested workarounds are very long winded compared to just inputting the local Post Code.

I am mindful that as a basic member I'm not really in a position to complain about a free service, but I am surprised that members who pay for the privilege of Premium membership can accept that dependance on external third parties providing this data makes this an acceptable situation which may or may not get fixed at some future point in time.

The best solution for me is to use the excellent(and free!) c:geo application on my Android device as it seems to me to have much better functionalty than the Geocaching.com website and app when out in the field although I would prefer to use my desktop PC when planning trips if only the search facilities worked better.

[+edscott]

Today it does not know Pottstown, PA population 22,000, the next town West Birdsboro Pa, population 5000, or the next town North Boyertown Pa population 4000. Edited to add Norristown PA to the list: pop 34000, Collegeville PA pop 5000...

 

Check the map and see how large the area is that no longer exists in location name search options. Map

Edited February 13, 2014 by edscott

[+edscott]

Found another strange situation regarding address search. Blue Ball PA, population 1000, is on the list. Another community about 2 miles away (New Holland, population of 5000 and HQ of New Holland Farm Equipment) is not on the list. Why list an obscure crossroads a couple miles out of town?

[+edscott]

Another area in PA that does not exist when searching by town name. Hamburg & Auburn PA

[+SMO-KEY]

It took me hours to figure this one out as I recently purchased an ipad air and iMac and thought these products were the problem until I researched more and found that it is actually the geocaching web site that has problems - so much for paying for service we can't use

Edited February 24, 2014 by SMO-KEY

[+edscott]

..today asking for "Chester PA" (Population 34000) puts you Here about 30 miles away near Coatesville PA. Why not just remove the option until it can be fixed.

[+edscott]

Going to North East Maryland Saturday.... oops, it doesn't exist anymore.

[Moun10Bike]

Ed, I think you have missed some of the discussion that has occurred in the forums regarding this. We are aware of the issues. The root of the problem is that we geocode addresses using a rotating suite of available online geocoders, and we have grown to the point where we have exceeded their limits. As a result, they are starting to shut down requests coming from Geocaching.com. We are looking into options, but it will take a while to find a workable solution.

[+edscott]

Make it a premium feature with a maximum number of hits per month per account?

[snaps1230]

Being a very new member I too found the post code not being recognised a problem. My work round has been to pick up the actual lat/long co-ordinates from Google maps and paste that in the geocaching search box. Seems to work OK......so far......

[+edscott]

Being a very new member I too found the post code not being recognised a problem. My work round has been to pick up the actual lat/long co-ordinates from Google maps and paste that in the geocaching search box. Seems to work OK......so far......

 

...or make a list of areas you are likely to cache in the near future and record the GC# of one cache near each area, print a map... hang it on the wall... and put those numbers in the right spot with a sharpie. Lots of workarounds, but they are less efficient. Hopefully there is a solution soon.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Ed, I think you have missed some of the discussion that has occurred in the forums regarding this. We are aware of the issues. The root of the problem is that we geocode addresses using a rotating suite of available online geocoders, and we have grown to the point where we have exceeded their limits. As a result, they are starting to shut down requests coming from Geocaching.com. We are looking into options, but it will take a while to find a workable solution.

 

I am somewhat familiar with services like this and typically those limits are for what users can get for free. By rotating through different services GS could provide a Search by Address/Postal code feature without paying for a geocoding service. It saves GS money, but it's pretty clear that "exceeding the limit" of free services is not working if the goal is to provide a reliable Search by Address/Postal code feature.

 

Make it a premium feature with a maximum number of hits per month per account?

 

 

That might be an option if the free services can't meet the demands of GS users, but it seems to me that the ability to discover a list of geocaches based on an Address is basic, core functionality for a location based application. If that means that GS should start paying for a reliable, robust geocoding service, perhaps GS should consider doing so if that's what it takes to provide basic functionality.

[Moun10Bike]

We discovered that MapQuest had imposed a new license on their geocoder and we have updated our search engine to implement it. It appears that many of the places that were returning errors previously are now correctly geocoding.

[+edscott]

Good news... I'll not check it out so I don't add any unnecessary searches to the totals, but the one I did for tomorrow's caches worked.

[+edscott]

Good news... I'll not check it out so I don't add any unnecessary searches to the totals, but the one I did for tomorrow's caches worked.