This is an archived page. The information on this archived page is no longer current.
Why doesn't this address validate?
QuestionLast Updated: March 18, 2013
Occasionally I have addresses that fail validation and I can't determine how to fix it. Do you have some examples that might help?
| || Be sure to separate the recipient/company data from the address data. It should look more like this: |
Sabanera del Rio --> This is the company, name, or recipient
Almacigo 436 --> This is the address
Curabo, PR 00778 --> This is the city, state, and ZIP
| ||This fails because an exact determination for the street name is unavailable. It could be "Pacific Coast HWY 128" or "Pacific Coast HWY" and then apartment 128. It is ambiguous. However, once a # is added in front of the 128, it validates perfectly.|
| ||This fails because the street name is misspelled. It should be "Sausalito". Once the spelling is corrected, it validates perfectly. (Apparently, trying to compensate for a mis-spelled city name in this case led to ambiguity that could not be afforded while meeting CASS™ requirements.) Variations of this typo do verify, however. For example: "Sauslito".|
| || Bad primary number (which can't be guessed), and "Anaheim Hills" twice confuses the parser, especially when entered as a single-line address. Also, "Anaheim Hills" is a private community, not a city name. Note that other services put the country into the "Firm Name" field or out front of the address, or included Anaheim Hills as if it were valid. We're not sure why they're doing this. However, these variants do verify with LiveAddress: |
7584 E Big Cannon Drive anaheim hills ca 92808
7584 bg cannon 92808
7584 big cannon ave aneheim hills ca