P: Latitude/longitude search wildly inaccurate in Map module

I can no longer reproduce this behavior in CC 2015.10 / OS X 10.12.3.  I tried these coordinates from previous posts in this topic:

-27.033813, 153.465791
37.101, -118.733
 44.498656,-118.639716 
30.832783, 111.109783
48.918326,11.409075
-33.840663, 151.071579
 N44.46049° W110.82893°

In all, when I paste them into Google Maps search box and into the LR Map search box, the displayed markers are at identical locations.

I'm marking this topic as "solved"; but if someone encounters a counter-example, please post!

I'd agree with this statement:

...LR should just be showing the exact coordinates, not a "nearby" named entity. Google Maps can do this, and it would be straightforward for LR to do it too -- LR is just misusing the Google Maps API.

except for "nearby" unless "nearby" means possibly miles farther away from closer named entities.

Google Maps is the one picking the named entities for given coordinates. I would guess it has a complicated set of heuristics designed for giving directions (by car, by walking), and those heuristics probably are not as well-tuned for less-populated areas.

The bug is not that the heuristically chosen named entity is sometimes wildly wrong; rather, LR should just be showing the exact coordinates, not a "nearby" named entity. Google Maps can do this, and it would be straightforward for LR to do it too -- LR is just misusing the Google Maps API.

LR Search isn't even consistent. Sometimes, if I've selected a geotagged photo but repositioned the map manually and enter a search value the search "works" (with the usual limitations), sometimes (entering the exact same search value) it repositions to the metadata location not what I searched on.

Back to the Old Faithful example. N44.46049° W110.82893° is very close to the geyser. LR search repositions to the Loop Trail, more than 300 feet away to the west. OK. I don't understand why Old Faithful geyser wouldn't be selected instead or even Split Cone geyser (see below) both of which are closer than the trail.

If I reduce the longitude value by only 1/100000 of a degree (N44.46049° W110.82892°) I'm repositioned again to the mislabeled Mystic Falls, many miles away, east of the geyser. N44.46049° W110.82892° is just as close to the Loop Trail as N44.46049° W110.82893° at a slightly different point on the trail.

I can force LR to position to Old Faithful geyser by searching for N44.46049° W110.82810° which is more than 200 feet TO THE EAST of N44.46049° W110.82892° so it makes no sense to me why LR would skip over what it apparently knows is a named entity, Old Faithful geyser, and instead position to the mislabeled Mystic Falls but position correctly if I enter a lat/long even farther away to the east.

By tweaking lat/long (e.g. N44.46049° W110.82840°) I can also get LR to position on Split Cone geyser (another known entity) which LR says is between the trail and OF geyser.

At least in Yellowstone and I suspect many other locations, search is of very limited use, to say the least. When I search with a lat/long and specify 1/100000 degree accuracy I don't want to be positioned on a point many miles away.

Given how long LR has had problems handling search correctly I'm not expecting Adobe to fix it any time soon.

Maybe they could just add a disclaimer or warning to users who expect it work properly even given it's insistence on positioning to a known entity.

And finally, Adobe has recently acknowledged this four-year-old bug: http://feedback.photoshop.com/photosh.... But that doesn't necessarily mean it will get fixed soon.

Also, beware that Google Maps may show different people different results, depending from which country they're invoking Google Maps. I'm invoking Google Maps and LR Map from California, US.

"That's an interesting theory but without knowing what other named entities might be closer to what I'm searching for it's impossible to confirm."

If you read through the other posts in this thread, you'll see that lots of others have experienced very similar symptoms over the past four years and that it's been confirmed these symptoms are caused by the LR Map module showing a nearby named entity when you enter coordinates in the LR Map search box. (The formats of the coordinates have nothing to do with the issue.)

With the old Google Maps, it was very easy to confirm this -- when you searched for coordinates, Google Maps would show you two markers, one for the exact coordinates and one for the named entity. That named entity corresponded with what the LR Map module would show you.

With the new Google Maps, you have to do a little extra work to confirm. First, paste "44°41'33" N 110°44'07" W" into the LR Map search box, which will result in this location:

Next, paste the same coordinates into the Google Maps search box, which will result in Google showing you the exact location with a red marker:

(That location is different than the one shown by LR Map.) Next, click on the red marker, and then in the white box that appears at the bottom, next to "Park County", click on the blue diamond with a white arrow in it:

This will open Google Directions, with the end point a nearby named entity:

Note that this nearby named entity is the same location as that displayed by LR Map for those coordinates.

Here's the LR Map results, the Google Maps results, and the Google Directions results for "-33.840663, 151.071579":




And for "44 27 31 N 110 49 50 W":




Sometimes, LR Map picks a different nearby named entity than Google Directions. For example, for "44.3015 N 110.7337 W", LR Map picks Mystic Falls, while Google Directions picks Loop Trail. As another example, for "44.46049, -110.82882", LR Map again picks Mystic Falls, while Google Directions picks Loop Trail (a different point on Loop Trail than in the previous example).

I believe this difference arises because LR Map is using the Google Maps API that's made available to third-party apps, whereas Google Directions is almost certainly using an internal API that is somewhat different in behavior.

Nevertheless, these examples confirm the cause of the behavior you're seeing: When you enter coordinates into LR Map's search box, LR is showing you the location of a nearby named entity, rather than the exact location.

That's an interesting theory but without knowing what other named entities might be closer to what I'm searching for it's impossible to confirm.

I'm assuming that if anything in Yellowstone is a named entity, Old Faithful is and that's what I was searching for when I entered N44.46049 W110.82882. LR returned a point many miles away that's labeled incorrectly Mystic Falls on the map. The incorrect labeling appears to also be a problem with Google Maps in a browser. Mystic Falls is really miles away from Old Faithful but in the opposite direction.

Bottom line: Adobe can make the search work at least as well as a lat/long entered in metadata does.

Maybe I'll forget about using search and just use GPS in metadata for my searching since it works better, at least until Adobe fixes search.

When you enter coordinates into the search box of the LR Map module, it shows the location of the nearest named entity (town, street, creek, mountain, etc.). I think this one bug accounts for all the wierdness you were observing.

There are a number of "anomalies" with Lightroom's handling of lat/log coordinates in the Map module.

1. If lat/long is entered in the search box in this format: 44.3015 N 110.7337 W, Lightroom doesn't object to the format but doesn't return the correct position. With this example, it returns a location 12 miles away from the correct location.

If exactly the same thing is entered in the metadata GPS field the photo is geotagged correctly and LR will position the map correctly when the photo is selected.

2. If I search on 44°41'33" N 110°44'07" W, LR positions me to a point near Artist's Paint Pots in Yellowstone. If I reduce the longitude by only 1" (44°41'33" N 110°44'06" W which should position ever so slightly to the east) LR positions me to a point 16.5 miles to the south-south-east of the original point. The true distance between the two points is only about 73 feet.

If I try the same two points using Google Maps in my browser, I get the correct results

3. Some points entered in this format: 44.46049, -110.82882 work correctly and some don't. 44.46049, -110.82882 doesn't but -33.840663, 151.071579 does. 44.46049, -110.82882 is the location of Old Faithful geyser in Yellowstone. LR search returns what appears to be a favorite point (when it doesn't work correctly) many miles away. -33.840663, 151.071579 is in Sydney, Australia.
4. The default lat/long format is 44°27'31" N 110°49'50" W but the simpler 44 27 31 N 11049 50 W will return the same result, at least with this example.

LR developers should ensure that if a particular coordinate format doesn't work, the user is told that it doesn't work and not just return a wrong location.

A format that works in the metadata GPS field should also work in the search field.

It's not that hard to handle variations of the N44.46049 W110.82882 format and allow for flexible entry, e.g. with or without things like "N", "W", ",", "-" and spaces positioned before or after the decimal values.

My testing was done with LR 6.1. OS Windows 8.1 Pro 64-bit.