TST: Remove remote call to Danbury, CT

[pllim]

Description

This pull request is to remove remote call to Danbury, CT for EarthLocation.of_address() to reduce server hit.

I decided not to fix the failing example because I don't see much point in making extra queries when the text already says you can pass in partial address if you want. What the server actually can and cannot parse is beyond our control.

Original failure that started on 2023-05-09:

_____________________________ [doctest] index.rst ______________________________
341 For arbitrary Earth addresses (e.g., not observatory sites), use the
342 :meth:`~astropy.coordinates.EarthLocation.of_address` classmethod to retrieve
343 the latitude and longitude. This works with fully specified addresses, location
344 names, city names, etc:
345 
346 .. doctest-remote-data::
347 
348     >>> EarthLocation.of_address('1002 Holy Grail Court, St. Louis, MO')  # doctest: +FLOAT_CMP
349     <EarthLocation (-26769.86528679, -4997007.71191864, 3950273.57633915) m>
350     >>> EarthLocation.of_address('Danbury, CT')  # doctest: +FLOAT_CMP
Expected:
    <EarthLocation (1362610.66896362, -4590755.48088484, 4198817.69912853) m>
Got:
    <EarthLocation (1364606.6451165, -4593292.9428273, 4195415.93695139) m>

docs/coordinates/index.rst:350: DocTestFailure

[github-actions]

Thank you for your contribution to Astropy! 🌌 This checklist is meant to remind the package maintainers who will review this pull request of some common things to look for.

• Do the proposed changes actually accomplish desired goals?
• Do the proposed changes follow the Astropy coding guidelines?
• Are tests added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy testing guidelines?
• Are docs added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy documentation guidelines?
• Is rebase and/or squash necessary? If so, please provide the author with appropriate instructions. Also see "When to rebase and squash commits".
• Did the CI pass? If no, are the failures related? If you need to run daily and weekly cron jobs as part of the PR, please apply the "Extra CI" label. Codestyle issues can be fixed by the bot.
• Is a change log needed? If yes, did the change log check pass? If no, add the "no-changelog-entry-needed" label. If this is a manual backport, use the "skip-changelog-checks" label unless special changelog handling is necessary.
• Is this a big PR that makes a "What's new?" entry worthwhile and if so, is (1) a "what's new" entry included in this PR and (2) the "whatsnew-needed" label applied?
• Is a milestone set? Milestone must be set but we cannot check for it on Actions; do not let the green checkmark fool you.
• At the time of adding the milestone, if the milestone set requires a backport to release branch(es), apply the appropriate "backport-X.Y.x" label(s) before merge.

[mhvk]

Makes sense to me.

[adrn]

Fine by me :) - that was just a silly easter egg of mine to inject my hometown into the examples, but I think the previous example is sufficient!

[adrn]

[mhvk]

OK, finally all tests seem to have passed -- merging!