-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 449
Description
Hi!
I was checking out libpostal, and saw something that could be improved.
My country is
US
Here's how I'm using libpostal
Parsing list of addresses in my city to store in a normalized relational database.
Here's what I did
Parsed the following address "1141 Kendall Town Blvd #3202, Jacksonville, FL 32225"
Here's what I got
house_number: 1141
road: kendall town blvd #3202
city: jacksonville
state: fl
postcode: 32225
Here's what I was expecting
house_number: 1141
unit: #3202
road: kendall town blvd
city: jacksonville
state: fl
postcode: 32225
-
Does the input address exist in OpenStreetMap?
No -
Do all the toponyms exist in OSM (city, state, region names, etc.)?
City and state are in OSM -
If the address uses a rare/uncommon format, does changing the order of the fields yield the correct result?
"1141 #3202 Kendall Town Blvd, Jacksonville, FL 32225" results in the following format
house_number: 1141 #3202
road: kendall town blvd
city: jacksonville
state: fl
postcode: 32225
But "#3202" should be in listed under "unit" and not house number. However "1141 apt 3202 Kendall Town Blvd, Jacksonville, FL 32225" outputs the correct format
house_number: 1141
unit: apt 3202
road: kendall town blvd
city: jacksonville
state: fl
postcode: 32225
- If the address contains apartment/floor/sub-building information or uncommon formatting, does removing that help? Is there any minimum form of the address that gets the right parse?
Yes, the following results in correct output
"1141 apt 3202 Kendall Town Blvd, Jacksonville, FL 32225"
Here's what I think could be improved
If "# followed by numbers is listed before the city it would be treated as unit number.