Location weights give you fine control over where the search centre is placed when multiple users are involved. Think of weights as "voting power" - higher weights pull the search centre closer to that location.

How weights work

Weights range from 0 to 100 and represent the relative importance of each location:

Default weight: 50 (equal influence)
Higher weight: More influence on search centre placement
Lower weight: Less influence on search centre placement

Basic examples

Equal weighting (default)

When all locations have the same weight, the search centre is the geometric midpoint.

Equal weights (default behavior)

  locations: [
    { lat: 51.5072, lon: -0.1276, weight: 50 },
    { lat: 51.5154, lon: -0.1419, weight: 50 },
  ],
  mode: { mode: "POINT", maxDistance: 500 },

Unequal weighting

When one location has higher weight, the search centre moves closer to it.

Bob has higher weight

  locations: [
    { lat: 51.5072, lon: -0.1276, weight: 30 },
    { lat: 51.5154, lon: -0.1419, weight: 70 },
  ],
  mode: { mode: "POINT", maxDistance: 500 },

In this case, the second location has more influence, so venues will be found closer to it.

Real-world scenarios

Flexible vs. inflexible users

Some users may be more willing to travel further than others.

Alice is flexible, Bob prefers convenience

  locations: [
    { lat: 51.5072, lon: -0.1276, weight: 25 },
    { lat: 51.5154, lon: -0.1419, weight: 75 },
  ],
  mode: { mode: "POINT", maxDistance: 500 },

The first location gets a weight of 25 (more flexible), while the second gets 75 (prefers convenience). The search centre will be much closer to the second location.

Group dynamics

Consider travel preferences, time constraints, or seniority in group decisions.

Group with different constraints

  locations: [
    { lat: 51.5072, lon: -0.1276, weight: 20 },
    { lat: 51.5154, lon: -0.1419, weight: 40 },
    { lat: 51.5034, lon: -0.1195, weight: 40 },
  ],
  mode: { mode: "POINT", maxDistance: 500 },

The first and second locations have equal weight (40), while the third has less influence (20).

Accessibility considerations

Users with mobility challenges may need venues closer to them.

Accessibility-aware weighting

  locations: [
    { lat: 51.5072, lon: -0.1276, weight: 80 },
    { lat: 51.5154, lon: -0.1419, weight: 20 },
  ],
  mode: { mode: "POINT", maxDistance: 500 },
};

Let's say the first location is a wheelchair user and the second is an able-bodied user. The first location gets a weight of 80, while the second gets 20. The search centre will be much closer to the first location. In this case, you would also want to set the maxDistance to a lower value to ensure the search centre is within an accessible distance and that accessibility options are provided in preferences.

Weight calculation examples

Two locations

Location 1: weight 30
Location 2: weight 70
Total weight: 100
Location 1's influence: 30/100 = 30%
Location 2's influence: 70/100 = 70%

Three locations

Location 1: weight 20
Location 2: weight 30
Location 3: weight 50
Total weight: 100
Location 1's influence: 20/100 = 20%
Location 2's influence: 30/100 = 30%
Location 3's influence: 50/100 = 50%

Forcing a location

Location 1: weight 50
Location 2: weight 50
Location 3: weight 100
Total weight: 200
Location 1's influence: 50/100 = 50%
Location 2's influence: 50/100 = 50%
Location 3's influence: 100/100 = 100% - overriding the other two locations

Best practice

Start with equal weights (50) and adjust based on needs
Use meaningful weight differences - small differences (45 vs 55) have minimal impact
Consider user experience - extreme weights (10 vs 90) can make one user feel ignored
Test with real scenarios - weights affect travel times and user satisfaction
Document your weighting logic - explain to users why certain locations have more influence

Weights