Author Topic: Another offline address not found  (Read 195 times)

Offline Andrew Heard

  • Padavan of Locus
  • ***
  • Posts: 386
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
Another offline address not found
« on: August 17, 2017, 06:11:43 »
Offline address search > South Australia > city:Adelaide > street:"shearwater drive" is not found
map: Oceania/ Australia/ south_australia.osm.db
I bought the latest version for confirmation just in case, but no change: 2017/07/22

lat/lon and street clearly shown in screen cap below:


other search results are valid:

« Last Edit: August 17, 2017, 06:13:24 by Andrew Heard »
Sony Z1, Samsung Galaxy Note 8
 

Offline voldapet

  • Administrator
  • Padavan of Locus
  • *****
  • Posts: 426
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: Another offline address not found
« Reply #1 on: August 17, 2017, 18:25:49 »
Hi Andrew,
well I spent maybe an hour looking for the reason wihtout any clue. In the last step I tested in the app and ... it worked properly :) I also checked the database itself and it seems to be OK. The Shearwater dr. is correctly assigned into Adelaide city. So quite tricky if I can't simulate it.  Are you sure that you use the latest 2017.07.22 LoMap?
Tested in the latest PRO version and LoMaps 2017.07.22


EDIT: I think that version of LoMap can't influence it because the street wasn't edited  for years.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2017, 18:31:36 by voldapet »
 

Offline Andrew Heard

  • Padavan of Locus
  • ***
  • Posts: 386
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
Re: Another offline address not found
« Reply #2 on: August 17, 2017, 23:43:21 »
Thanks Petr. When I got the error last week I was using  LoMap south_australia.osm.db 2016.08.28. So before I created this topic I bought the latest map  2017.07.22, retested, and got the same error (yesterday). But now it lists the address. How strange. As you say that address is at least a few years in OSM database, so how to explain?

So I thought I should also check a few other nearby addresses. How are the results sorted for display? I find in this screencap below search for  South Australia > city:Adelaide > street:dotterel has the closest address at the end of list. I guess sorted alphabetically.

I then tried address:main, which is very common English name. Same issue. Would it be more useful for the search results to be sorted by distance from current GPS/ current cursor rather than alphabetically?
Sony Z1, Samsung Galaxy Note 8
 

Offline voldapet

  • Administrator
  • Padavan of Locus
  • *****
  • Posts: 426
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: Another offline address not found
« Reply #3 on: August 18, 2017, 13:26:10 »
I'd like to explain it but I don't know. Probably some small elfs ot trolls...

Cities are sorted by distance and priority (size). Streets are sorted alphabetically. IMHO is better to find the street in alphabetically sorted list of suggestions than sorted by distance. Because in most cases users do not know how far the street they are searching. I can remember that we also studied other apps when we implemented offline address search feature. Maybe there was another reason ... menion, do you remeber it? But it's on discussion.
 

Offline Andrew Heard

  • Padavan of Locus
  • ***
  • Posts: 386
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
Re: Another offline address not found
« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2017, 02:25:39 »
I see your point of view, and agree alpha sort is best overall. I think existing alpha sort for longer list (scrolling needed) is logical; for short list distance sort maybe more useful, but of course now the list is...short so any sorting is not so necessary.
Sony Z1, Samsung Galaxy Note 8