Subject: [Geopriv] FYI - Google geocoding vs PIDF-LO

From: Andrew Daviel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 02:22:16 -0700 (PDT)

FYI (apologies if this has been already seen/discussed) :

There are a few sites using Google's geocoding API to derive position 
data, plus geocoding information. So it may become a de facto standard 
simply because Google is popular and their API is freely available and 
easy to use.

As per http://www.google.com/apis/maps/documentation/reference.html,
http://www.developer.com/lang/jscript/article.php/3615681

Google                      PIDF-LO
------                      -------
Thoroughfare                A6,PRD,POD,STS,HNO
Locality                    A3
SubAdministrativeArea       A2
AdministrativeArea          A1
PostalCode                  PC
CountryNameCode             country

I fed a few addresses in Canada, England, France, USA to see what it came 
up with. Ironically, the US addresses I tried (presumably the first 
country that Google put online) did not work.

For UK and Canadian addresses, the postcodes were fractional, which might 
be confusing if you tried to use it on a letter. E.g. "RH17 5" for
"RH17 5QQ"  (UK), or "V6T" for "V6T 2A3" (CA). Unlike the US, postcodes here 
are never split - at least not by ordinary people.

In the UK, one would normally use a county as AdministrativeArea (e.g. 
Devon, Cornwall, Middlesex), but Google uses "England". Which makes a 
certain amount of sense - "Great Britain" (GB) as I recall is England, 
Scotland + Wales while adding Northern Ireland makes it "United Kingdom" 
(UK). It just seems odd at first glance. But then, the postal address of 
my old home in Britain never did make much sense - the "town" was about
5 miles away, while the mail was actually sorted in a different town 
about 20 miles in the other direction (its initials forming the first
letters of the postcode, and the road name was usually left off the 
postal address altogether, so that physically finding it from the address 
was rather hard).
Google's SubAdministrativeArea sometimes matches counties in the UK, 
sometimes not. In Vancouver it is "Greater Vancouver Regional District" - 
not the answer you get if you ask someone where they live. They'd just 
say "Vancouver", or maybe "Kerrisdale" if pressed (the "village" or 
district).

Anyway, if I rid myself of the notion that geocoding ought to match 
postal addresses or common usage, Google's matches fairly well to
the most significant PIDF-LO fields.

Google                       postal
4004 Wesbrook Mall           4004 Wesbrook Mall
Vancouver                    Vancouver
GVRD                         BC
BC                           V6T 2A3
V6T                          Canada
CA

Colwoon Ln                   Green Gables    (not the actual name)
Bolney                       Bolney
West Sussex                  Haywards Heath
England                      Sussex
RH17 5                       RH17 5QQ
GB                           Great Britain

-- 
Andrew Daviel, TRIUMF, Canada

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: "Carl Reed OGC Account" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:56:13 -0600

Andrew -

This is not entirely correct.

Since KML version 2.0, addresses are able to be encoded in a KML document 
using the OASIS CIQ/xAL standard.

Further, the Google geocoding response payload uses the same tags as defined 
in the OASIS CIQ/xAL standard and is therefore consistent with KML.

So, Google has not invented a new set of tags or semantics for encoding 
address information and are instead relying on another international 
standard.

Some other interesting tidbits.

The latest version of CIQ/xAL that was recently posted for public comment 
has enhanced location elements. The new version will use geometry as 
specified in GeoRSS GML which by the way is totally consistent with the use 
of GML for expressing geodetics in the LO.

Finally, KML 2.1 and KML 2.2 are now OGC Best Practices documents. Starting 
in October, the OGC membership will begin working on KML 2.2 to become an 
OGC international standard. Google is 100% in support of KML becoming an OGC 
standard. Which by reference means that this is a major endorsement of the 
OASIS CIQ/xAL approach to encoding addresses.

Regards

Carl

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew Daviel" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 3:22 AM
Subject: [Geopriv] FYI - Google geocoding vs PIDF-LO

> "RH17 5QQ"  (UK), or "V6T" for "V6T 2A3" (CA). Unlike the US, postcodes 
> here are never split - at least not by ordinary people.
>
> 5 miles away, while the mail was actually sorted in a different town about 
> 20 miles in the other direction (its initials forming the first
> letters of the postcode, and the road name was usually left off the postal 
> address altogether, so that physically finding it from the address was 
> rather hard).
> not the answer you get if you ask someone where they live. They'd just say 
> "Vancouver", or maybe "Kerrisdale" if pressed (the "village" or district).
>
> Anyway, if I rid myself of the notion that geocoding ought to match postal 
> addresses or common usage, Google's matches fairly well to

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:11:07 -0400

Is there a way to make KML and PIDF-LO say the same thing for all tags that
intersect?

Is there some reason we can't?

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Reed OGC Account [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:56 AM
> To: Andrew Daviel; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] FYI - Google geocoding vs PIDF-LO
> 
> Andrew -
> 
> about
> postal
> say
> postal

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:43:48 -0400

I'm going to answer my own question.  The KML is derived from CIQ/AL, which
uses RMCommonTypes, which comes from EDXL, which comes from OASIS UBL, a
business language.  

I think it's inadequate to describe locations all over the world.  The PIDF
fields are much more appropriate for an international standard.

Brian

> From: Brian Rosen [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:11 PM
> To: 'Carl Reed OGC Account'; 'Andrew Daviel'; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Geopriv] FYI - Google geocoding vs PIDF-LO
> 
> > > sometimes not. In Vancouver it is "Greater Vancouver Regional
> District"
> > -

---

From: "Carl Reed OGC Account" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:54:06 -0600

Brian -

I have been involved in a variety of EDXL discussions in the OASIS EM TC. As 
far as I am aware, CIQ predates EDXL by a number of years. xAL also predates 
EDXL (which is very US centric). From what I know, xAL resulted from an 
analysis of many different addressing systems but I can check with the xAL 
editor.

Regards

Carl

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Brian Rosen'" <[email-masked]>; "'Carl Reed OGC Account'" 
<[email-masked]>; "'Andrew Daviel'" <[email-masked]>; 
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:43 PM
Subject: RE: [Geopriv] FYI - Google geocoding vs PIDF-LO

>> > OGC international standard. Google is 100% in support of KML becoming 
>> > an
>> > OGC

---

From: "Carl Reed OGC Account" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:56:16 -0600

Brian -

Further clarification on the background of CIQ/xAL. This from the CIQ TC 
Chair:

CIQ was started in 1999-2000 when there were no XML specifications for Party 
name and address. UBL was started in 2002-2003 and their address semantics 
which they started by using the work of CIQ on addresses.  CIQ comes from 
the original work done by Mastersoft in 1998-1999 called Name and Address 
Markup Language and by AND International in 1998-99 called Global Address 
Specifications in XML. So, CIQ has a long history years before EDXL came on 
board .

Regards

Carl

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:34:31 -0400

I stand corrected.  However, the inability of the system to express, for
example, Chinese and Japanese addresses, is a problem.  You need more "A"
levels, and as we have found, you can't give them restrictive names, because
the form of address really does vary quite a bit in the space between
state/province and street name.  

Brian

> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 4:56 PM
> To: Brian Rosen; 'Andrew Daviel'; [email-masked]
> >> > specified in GeoRSS GML which by the way is totally consistent with
> the
> >> > use
> >> > in October, the OGC membership will begin working on KML 2.2 to
> become
> >> an
> >> > standard. Which by reference means that this is a major endorsement
> of
> >> the
> >> > > As per
> http://www.google.com/apis/maps/documentation/reference.html,
> >> > > I fed a few addresses in Canada, England, France, USA to see what
> it
> >> > came
> >> > > (UK). It just seems odd at first glance. But then, the postal
> address
> >> of