Assigned
Status Update
Comments
ca...@google.com <ca...@google.com>
ca...@google.com <ca...@google.com> #2
Thanks for your suggestion! We are currently evaluating this request, but do not have any plans to implement it at the moment. Please star to add your vote and receive further updates, and feel free to add any comments to discuss your use case.
ve...@yardi.com <ve...@yardi.com> #3
I've transitioned from this team. Thanks!
ca...@google.com <ca...@google.com> #4
We thank you for your patience.
It seems that the Autocomplete prediction for 11112-200 San Jose Blvd
returns with the same Place ID with 11112 San Jose Blvd
that leads to the details missing the 200
.
For further checking, please advise on what the 200
means for the address 11112-200 San Jose Blvd
and also provide the official source of information that validates it.
am...@gmail.com <am...@gmail.com> #5
200 means the unit in the property. There can be multiple units in a property say unit number 100, unit number 200 etc.
am...@gmail.com <am...@gmail.com> #6
Hi Team,
Can you please let us know if there is any update on this.
Can you please let us know if there is any update on this.
ca...@google.com <ca...@google.com> #8
Please be advised that we have verified and logged this issue internally. Kindly note that we cannot give you any timelines, but you can star the issue to get notifications. to get notifications.
am...@gmail.com <am...@gmail.com> #9
Hi Team,
Can you please let us know if there is any update on this.
Can you please let us know if there is any update on this.
Description
1. Navigate to internal google URL -
2. Enter the address - 11112 San Jose Blvd, Jacksonville, FL - and note the Place ID that is returned.
3. Now enter address - 11112-200 San Jose Blvd, Jacksonville, FL - and the note that Place IDs are identical in both the cases.
Please can you look into this and let me know if this is by design because of how the addresses are structured or if this is a result of a bug.
I had created another issue for the same but I did not get any response, which is why I have created a new issue for this.
Thank you,
Vedant.