Reverse lookup results for places outside cities?

[vlad]

If I open the GEO Tag panel and invoke a GPS lookup on "Banff National Park", then I'm getting meaningful coordinates (51.49 N, 115.92 W). However, if I'm now invoking the Reverse geo lookup (on exactly those coordinates), then no location gets filled up. (I was expecting to get at least Alberta and Canada filled up.) Same thing happens after I move the marker somewhere else (in the middle of nowehere, but still within Alberta, Canada).

Is this a Google API limitation or a Photo Supreme quirck?

(I am confused because I did a quick search on the web and found a so called Google Reverse Geocode Tool, which is able to return meaningful names for exactly the same coordinates: http://noc.to/geodecode#51.4968450,-115.9280550)

[Hert]

PSU "asks" Google for the reverse lookup details and what Google returns is outside of the application"s control. PSU might ignore results that don't return sufficient details, not sure.

[vlad]

PSU might ignore results that don't return sufficient details, not sure.

That's exactly what I've thought it might happen. I'll wait to see if you could confirm or infirm that. (If I don't hear back, I'll probably take this to Mantis. Personally, I would like to get back all results, whether they contain full details or only partial details.)

[Hert]

This is what Google API returns for your coordinates:
http://maps.googleapis.com/maps/api/geo ... 49,-115.92

As you can see these are imprecise details. Compare that to a random spot in a big city:
http://maps.googleapis.com/maps/api/geo ... 9,2.455224

[vlad]

Hert, thanks for the followup.

This is what Google API returns for your coordinates:
http://maps.googleapis.com/maps/api/geo ... 49,-115.92

As you can see these are imprecise details.

They may be imprecise, but Alberta and Canada are there. I would like those returned as province and country, respectively.

Compare that to a random spot in a big city:
http://maps.googleapis.com/maps/api/geo ... 9,2.455224

I can see (for both examples) that Google API returns a bunch of results. How does PSU select among them?

[Hert]

Vlad, I'll see what I can do with imprecise results. And sorry, but I'm not going to elaborate on a public forum how PSU ticks internally.

[Lou_Salkind]

FWIW, I also would appreciate partial detail for more remote locations, as opposed to the current behavior of not generating anything.

[vlad]

Thanks, Hert. I had no idea that the results returned by Google API were so complex. I can imagine that sensibly selecting (or merging) the right details is far from trivial, so it's more than fair to not discuss that magic schema.

[PhilBurton]

Thanks, Hert. I had no idea that the results returned by Google API were so complex. I can imagine that sensibly selecting (or merging) the right details is far from trivial, so it's more than fair to not discuss that magic schema.

Vlad (and everyone else):

Is it acceptable to discuss any third-party utilities that might supplement the reverse lookup results in "non-urban areas?"

Is there any way to identify the images that are affected by the issue and which aren't?

Phil Burton

[Hert]

This is how the next update will do the reverse look as approximated results for your coordinates.

ImpreciseGEO.png (23.32 KiB) Viewed 7039 times

[vlad]

Thank you, Hert, I appreciate the improvement. I know beggars can't be choosers, but I'll push this a bit further:

Is there a technical meaning of "imprecise" and "approximate" in this context? I'm asking simply because I wonder if there would be any value to us (the users) if the interface provided some hint (or option) about approximate or imprecise details?

In the example above, I would certainly record the Alberta and Canada fields and labels, but I probably don't care about "Improvement District no. 9" (sounds a bit esoterical, doesn't it? ), so I will likely clear the City field before applying the changes. (Unfortunately, there are no X buttons next to the location fields, to easily clear their values.)

As a flexible approach, I have requested (Mantis #2943) a set of checkboxes for easily specifying (on a case by case basis) the expected location details returned by Reverse lookup. Any opinions?

(Please note that I had already considered such a request before the present discussion. For me, another use case would be to skip the state/province info for (some) European countries. In general, I aim for a fairly rich hierarchy of labels inside Places, but without the overload of labels such as "Improvement District no. 9". Does that make sense, or am I making it too complex?)