Jump to content

Find caches by zip code errors


Knight2000
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

It's google. They serve up two locations for those (and many others) postal codes and our site picks the first one. We have an open bug for this.

 

 

You use a Google query behind the scenes for the cache search page? Interesting.

 

When I use the public Google interface for those zipcodes, I only see the US reference. I must put the country name into the query as well to get it to return a reference to that country.

Link to comment
When I tried 44320 it came with caches from who knows where.

But, where I used 44320 Ohio it worked.

 

Well, I'll be!! I had no idea that you could take a state name on to the zipcode in the zop/postal code search, but by golly... it does work! That is a great tip!

 

Going to give it a try and see if I can get Searcy Arkansas (72145) out of Brazil.

Link to comment

I ignore the iPhone section since I don't use one. I certainly didn't mean to start a dup thread. I just thought I was too sleepy!

No, it's all good. I wouldn't say it's a duplicate thread. Many don't go to the iPhone section, especially if they don't have one. I just noticed it being mentioned there from a little while back and wondered if the two might be related. There was some info posted by Bryan & Nate (I think) that might be helpful to someone reading this thread.

Link to comment

Sounds like a similar issue the UK faced, if so it's a Google Data Licence issue. Google have to use separate licences for Commercial and Non Commercial zip/postcode data supply. Groundspeak being a commercial user.

 

If zip/postcode data is anything like the cost of OS map data in the UK, it costs a arm and a leg for commercial use [as opposed to just a arm when buying OS maps]. Having to purchase new zip/postcode data for virtually every country in the world on a regular basis must be prohibitive, which is why I'm guessing Groundspeak use data from Google.

Link to comment

The following from mysterious banned TrainLove, living in exile:

 

{Contents snipped by moderator. It's bad form to channel a banned member.}

I'm wondering what I posted that wasn't helpful to the caching community. The name could have been deleted but instead the relevant info was deleted.

Link to comment

The following from mysterious banned TrainLove, living in exile:

 

{Contents snipped by moderator. It's bad form to channel a banned member.}

I'm wondering what I posted that wasn't helpful to the caching community. The name could have been deleted but instead the relevant info was deleted.

I obviously can't (and don't) speak for TPTB, but I've been wondering why the mods had allowed forum members in good standing to post messages from TrainLove at all. The issue has nothing to do with whether the information is useful; it has everything to do with the fact that the user has been banned. By posting TrainLove's messages, you are acting as the user's surrogate, and they're re-entering the forums through you. It's a clever way to sneak back in, but not a way I would imagine TPTB approve of. Allowing these messages makes the bannination pretty much meaningless.

 

--Larry

Link to comment

In this thread that Motorcycle Mama closed as a duplicate describes a related, but possibly separate, issue. The OP of that thread reports looking for a cache for a London postcode and being offered a cache claimed to be 2.3 miles away when it was actually 4617.1 miles away in Texas. On that thread, someone suggested that the postcode the OP entered might be valid in Texas, but that seems wrong to me since UK postcodes contain letters as well as numbers while US zipcodes are purely numeric. Surely, it's unlikely that something like "SW1A 4GB" could be seen as a seven-digit Texas zipcode?

 

Geoff

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...