Strange Routing for Some House Numbers on a street
This is a strange one. I found a street in San Jose where a UR said an address was going to the wrong street. Assuming it was our normal GPS routing without accounting for the street name I tried to fix it, but found this problem was not exactly the same.
You can see the other addresses on that same block all route correctly. I eventually checked all the addresses on that image, and only the three marked in red came up wrong.
The 309 address is suspect as it is close to the other road Dupont St, however the actual GPS location on Google Maps shows it physically closer to Bautista Place.
I thought the problem was forced vs not forced addresses, but that was not the case. Both forced and non-forced addresses produce both results.
The only other data you can see here is 340 and 338 are possibly the farthest distance from Bautista compared to all the other addresses. Note that 338 was further south when I first ran the test and found the failure, but I moved it so I could see the address number.
Also 300, 313, 320 and 350 do not exist as an address, but Live Map will navigate correctly to those locations on Bautista Pl. However 307 also does not exist, but it fails like 309 (which is real).
Something I am not understanding is why some addresses on the right of Bautista are required to be forced and others are not. I wonder if that relates to our particular issue. Maybe there is something wrong with the Bautista Place segment in the database somehow.
Also since 342 works fine, I just need to move 340 and 338 closer to Bautista on Google Maps and Waze.
Has anyone else seen this strange behavior?
House addresses 340 and 338 on Bautista Place in San Jose, CA will show the correct destination with the checkered flag, but they route to a street that is a long way away from Bautista Place. You can see that Bautista Place is actually between the house and the destination where Waze sends you.You can see the other addresses on that same block all route correctly. I eventually checked all the addresses on that image, and only the three marked in red came up wrong.
The 309 address is suspect as it is close to the other road Dupont St, however the actual GPS location on Google Maps shows it physically closer to Bautista Place.
I thought the problem was forced vs not forced addresses, but that was not the case. Both forced and non-forced addresses produce both results.
The only other data you can see here is 340 and 338 are possibly the farthest distance from Bautista compared to all the other addresses. Note that 338 was further south when I first ran the test and found the failure, but I moved it so I could see the address number.
Also 300, 313, 320 and 350 do not exist as an address, but Live Map will navigate correctly to those locations on Bautista Pl. However 307 also does not exist, but it fails like 309 (which is real).
Something I am not understanding is why some addresses on the right of Bautista are required to be forced and others are not. I wonder if that relates to our particular issue. Maybe there is something wrong with the Bautista Place segment in the database somehow.
Also since 342 works fine, I just need to move 340 and 338 closer to Bautista on Google Maps and Waze.
Has anyone else seen this strange behavior?
Re: Strange Routing for Some House Numbers on a street