You were perhaps ambiguous then since you only provided Canada Post's website as a reference to your point.
For years Google has been working on a way to rectify the difference between postal addresses and physical addresses, to my knowledge, this is still something they have been unable to fix. We may be seeing a part of a fix or a data error.
An addressing convention that you look up on Canada Post is for mail only. In rural Canada, people's postal address can be hundreds of kilometres from their physical address. Please remember the rules for the map extend much farther than urban Ontario. You are right for the most part no mailing addresses changed in Toronto because Canada Post was unaffected by the amalgamation. That is unless the city re-named your street to harmonize physical addresses, this is to ensure no street names are duplicated across the new city of Toronto as this causes problems with things like emergency response.
I assure you a lot more work went into the amalgamation than you suggest, North York is now considered a district and it has a community council but not a town council, locals may still refer to it as North York. However, it is all the City of Toronto now.
The Ministry of Municipal Affairs keeps a list of Municipalities as well, it can be found here: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/page1591.aspx. North York is not listed.
Service Canada, Service Ontario or the City of Toronto have absolutely nothing to do with postal codes or those boundaries this is something solely done by Canada Post and as I said Canada Post only does mail, it is not an addressing authority in regard to actual civic addressing, it creates its own rules and addresses to deliver mail only.
Perhaps it is you who are interpreting Flash's statement incorrectly? When someone offers a differing point of view it can become a point of discussion. If you see something and another does not, quite often they will respond with something along the lines of "well that is not happening to me". Knowing Flash as I do, I believe that if he had seen other reports that reflected yours he response would have included that knowledge in his response.
In regard to your comments about a menu, it is your opinion that your inability to edit a menu link is a bug, however, having dealt with my fair share of maps hijacking I believe like Flash this is done on purpose, you are welcome to submit feedback asking for its inclusion to editing though. In more detail and in my opinion when someone asks how something works and is provided with an answer that they may not agree with it doesn't make the answer wrong. If the person asking the question doesn't agree with the design or feels it could be done better there are feedback options available. In this case in the Maps application itself to submit that feedback. Getting upset and going after the person providing the answer is not acceptable nor will it be a factor in changing the design as the person providing the answer, in this case, didn't design the product.
As for asking Google to tell you exactly what you need to do in order to have your edits approved, you can ask but in all my time working with Google Maps, this information has not been provided. Google must protect its data and in my opinion telling people exactly what they need to do in order to make changes without having them reviewed is not something Google is interested in have happen. Mapping trust is extremely complex and it is not a straight line and the idea that once you reach a certain level or a certain number of edits you can make edits at will is very much incorrect. Everyone receives denials and everyone gets reviewed at certain points and times.
Google Maps Platinum Product Expert, Top Contributor for Google Map Maker (Product Retired) and Regional Lead (Product Retired).
At no time has it been stated that geotagging of photos would cause that information to be used. I can understand confusion on your part as you've likely read others make the same comments as you previously, but that is not information that is used. I can also not imagine that it would be used in the future, adding fake coordinates to a photo takes only a few seconds and would be too easy to exploit by spammers.
Unfortunately there can never be precise information given as to how to make every edit get approved, that would basically be a handbook for spammers.
Dealing with edits being rejected by the system is something we must all deal with, and it is an unfortunate result of all the bad information submitted. No filter is perfect. If you can come up with methods that Google can approve every correct edit but not let any bad edits through then I'm sure they would love to hear if via Feedback.
Flash - LG Connect Moderator, Maps Platinum Product Expert, Map Maker Platinum Product Expert, RER and Regional Lead
Due to the volume I receive, I do not respond to unsolicited private messages
Well I think that this is another sign of how much Google values local guides opinions and experience, i.e. not at all
I wouldn't go that far. When dealing with a constantly evolving software package with millions of lines of code, there are bound to be bugs. This one inadvertently affects us local guides, but I wouldn't look for any malice or neglect here. These things happen, and they get fixed. Don't let a simple bug discourage you from participating in this endeavour, @Nigel_Musicalman.
No filter is perfect. If you can come up with methods that Google can approve every correct edit but not let any bad edits through then I'm sure they would love to hear if via Feedback.
I don't think anyone here is expecting these filters to be perfect. But this current iteration seems to be a step backwards. Sure, it may reduce the number of malicious edits made by spammers, but if it also stops trustworthy map editors like @Briggs from making legitimate fixes, it's basically throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Saying "everyone gets edits rejected once in a while" doesn't solve anything. If 85% of our edits get rejected, LGs will eventually stop making edits. The only ones who will relentlessly keep trying are the spammers.
@GregMcG, I'd gladly switch to any well-defined, consistent addressing scheme that Google wants me to use. However, I can't say the same for the tens of thousands of businesses in the various districts of Toronto who are, according to you, required to enter an address in Google My Business or Google Maps that is different from the one on their business cards, business permit and all their business correspondence.
Wouldn't it be simpler if Google used the address scheme that everyone else uses, rather than make everyone use Google's?
At no time has it been stated that geotagging of photos would cause that information to be used. I can understand confusion on your part as you've likely read others make the same comments as you previously, but that is not information that is used. I can also not imagine that it would be used in the future, adding fake coordinates to a photo takes only a few seconds and would be too easy to exploit by spammers.
But there could be guidelines provided to LG (a semi trusted source) to at least improve the chances edits can be accepted. Yes, the logical argument here is LG accounts could be hacked or scammers could join LG. Rarely, some clueless people publish their (or others) private PKI keys, and a handful of registrars have been less-than-trustworthy but PKI is still a trusted system.
Google somehow trusted an address that was correct as being in the middle of a major street when it is not. All other adjacent addresses were in the shopping center next to the final location I was moving the marker to. I would expect the reference information (adjacent addresses) would lend some credence to my edit. But this appears to not be the case.
As for others stating perhaps adding photos with GPS metadata as a means to improve the likelihood of acceptance, I took their comments as suggestions, but at least they were voicing something to address what many see as a problem and suggesting possible solutions. I would like to see Google at least offer something in that regard. I find it strange that a dozen LGs might try to move a marker for something away from a location a human can clearly see is wrong (e.g. a large building listed in the median of highways, etc) but Maps trusts some flawed source or algorithm to prohibit the marker change. Since I have no visibility into that part of Google I can't easily indicate why or suggest anything to mitigate the issue. And if I click to location (in the middle of the street) to leave feedback, Maps assumes I want to edit the street and not the misplaced marker. I'd be happy to tell them the business isn't in the middle of the street using feedback but that doesn't appear to be an option.
Interesting...the edit that 'could not be verified' on three submission attempts 28 hours ago appears to have magically taken effect...but not because of my edit. Google moved the marker from the middle of the street to the correct location in the shopping center. All of my edits still show 'not applied' and I have no email from Google regarding any map edits yesterday for that location. The only other way Google could've known the precise location for the business would've been the GPS coordinates in the photo of the business I uploaded since Maps was clearly rejecting any edits to the business location by users - even by LGs.
That then sounds like there was already an edit from another source pending, and your edits were denied due to being duplicates. It's an unfortunate part of mapping via Maps and why a lot of us experienced mappers would like to be able to see the other edits again; we knew not to queue up an already existing edit.
Unfortunately even when we could see edits you still got lots of duplicate edits through people not paying attention, people queuing extra edits thinking that would help push through the first one, or people accidentally creating duplicates because you still could not see the pending edits from other sources such as GMB. Duplicate edits are inevitable when mutiple edit sources and authors exist. Every serious mapper has denials due to making an unintentional duplicate edit, such things will not affect your trust level.
Flash - LG Connect Moderator, Maps Platinum Product Expert, Map Maker Platinum Product Expert, RER and Regional Lead
Due to the volume I receive, I do not respond to unsolicited private messages
2022
