I hope your Location search will be better than the AW one. All AW give you is the first part of a postcode which is of no use if you want to check out the street using street view
I didn't think of that because in my street several houses have the same postcode. I get worried about going to an area i don't know well, and do prefer to know exactly what the area is like . I do try and avoid WG that live on Council estates or high rise flats
For the safety, privacy, discretion of both WGs *and* punters the online shared intelligence about exact locations should be kept to the minimum (imho). Surely knowing the first half of the postcode and perhaps the walking distance time from something like a tube station or a big supermarket is sufficient information in deciding whether the location is convenient enough for you to go ahead and CALL a girl and let HER give you her full postcode. Yes, it is good to check the street view before you leave home or even before you book but I don't understand why would you need to check this out before even calling/texting the girl? And a girl controlling to whom she gives her address surely wouldn't want this to be online - I also doubt any punters who meet her will be willing to post it either. As for your concerns about an estate building shithole etc if the reviewer pays attention to the detail the venue will be described sufficiently enough for you to decide if it is good/safe enough to visit without the need for you to know where exactly it's located (you need to obtain this info from the WG)
And let’s say fuck privacy, security, etc, how would exactly Admin obtain the full postcodes of the WGs to introduce them in this new facility? Are you of the idea that he is going to create the profiles and complete the fields manually? By calling say the WGs or by PMing all the UKP reviewers and asking them for the postcodes? And even if he could somehow complete such an unimaginably, time-consuming task….keeping it up to date with so many girls moving, deleting their profiles and reappearing would perhaps be an even more colossal task.
Unless I am mistaken (which I doubt that I am) Admin’s idea of these UKP mini-profiles (or likely PuntingWiki ones) is them to be created and updated automatically by fetching the location, nationality and possibly other information from the Adultwork profiles in the same way now the nicknames are fetched. He can’t fetch something that is not available and for the location the only thing that can be fetched from Adultwork is at best the first part of the postcode and the nearest station.
True these profiles could have some additional fields (like estimated age bracket for example) to be completed by the members/reviewers as it is the case with C69. One of these controversial fields could of course be full postcodes so that you could have postcodes for reviews posted after the date this feature is introduced. But these extra manually-filled fields and especially the postcode one (if it is ever introduced on the UKP mini-profiles) would and *should* be optional to be completed as most punters (myself included) will be extremely reluctant to post such sensitive information publicly. Also given our members laziness and/or inability to contribute in PuntingWiki so far I doubt that many will bother filling up these fields anyway.
P.S: Some members who never really contribute are really good asking fancy technical things that would be absolutely useless without row info – perhaps for once they should consider supplying it first. Some things can only be achieved by a collective effort and not by waiting Admin doing miracles.
