nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

New geocoding engine is terrible.

DanMarrier

I really can't figure this one out. It flies in the face of the hierarchical priority for composite locators that we've been led to believe is in place.

I have a composite locator service that makes use of 9 individual locator services. Each of those 9 individual locator services has been tested and works as expected when run by itself on a given input address list.

For a specific address in my data set, I know ahead of time that the first locator service in the composite will not find a match when run as a standalone, but the second locator service will, as will some of the subsequent locator services lower in the hierarchy, although the later ones are more prone to errors.

However, when I run this address through the composite locator service, the second locator service is not returning a match. It ends up defaulting to the fourth locator service in the composite, and that service is actually returning a bad point location because I'm allowing for tied scores to be matched, and it is randomly picking the wrong one.

How on earth can a locator service find a match for an address when run by itself, but not when run in a composite where no locator higher than it in the hierarchy finds a match???

As an additional slap in the face, if I input just an address and a zipcode, and the locator finds the address in a different zipcode, the reported score is 95 out of 100. Really??? 95??? I would expect the default settings of any geocoding service to report a significantly lower score than 95 when the "matched" Zone is completely different than the one I input!

There also seems to be no heuristic or even common sense when making a match to a different zipcode. I know of at least one case where the input zipcode has been miskeyed as "02113" instead of "02133". But due to the highly arbitrary nature of matching tied score records... the "matched" address has a zipcode of "12508"... that's not even in the same state!!! You'd think that there would be some sort of additional check that if scores are tied and there are different zone values in play, that the one which more closely resembles the input would get a higher priority.

Has anybody else tested a composite service where an individual locator service works for a given address but fails when implemented in the composite?

Finde mehr Beiträge mit dem Tag

Accepted answers

All comments

ChristianMalmquist

I support the choice of name for this topic!

I spent ages setting up the geocoder for a small non-US datasett and would have saved time doing it manually or with a python script calling the google api.

Even went looking for the ArcView 3.1 install disks as its geocoder, albeit simple, actually did the job without any hassle 🙂

BradNiemand

This issue that you are seeing is not related to what is in this thread because the thread is specific to 10.0 locators in a composite. I would open a call with tech support.

Brad

DanC

1. Address Points Municipal City - US One Address with House Unit and Zone, 9.2, City
2. Address Points Postal City - US One Address with House Unit and Zone, 9.2, City
3. Same as #1, with lower minimum match score of 80.
4. Same as #2, with lower minimum match score of 80.
5. Same as #1, with lower minimum match score of 60.
6. Same as #2, with lower minimum match score of 60.
7. Parcel Points Postal City - US One Address with House Unit and Zone, 9.2, City
8. Local Street Centerlines Municipal City - US Streets with Zone, 9.3, City
9. Local Street Centerlines Postal City - US Streets with Zone, 9.3, City
10. Regional Street Centerlines - US Streets with Zone, 9.3, City

Field Mapping for the first 7 (Point data):
Street = _Street
Unit = _Unit
Zone = _Zone

Field Mapping for the rest (Line data):
Street or Intersection = _Street
Zone = _Zone

These locators are only for our 'City' zones, I have another composite locator that changes out the zone for Zip code fields.

BradNiemand

Can you give me a list of the locators from the top level to the last locator with the following:

1. Locator Style (with ArcGIS version) ex. US Address - Dual Ranges (ArcGIS 10)
2. Zone fields locator was built with. ex. city, state and zip or just zip
3. Field Mapping - ex. Street = _Street, Unit = _Unit, ...

Brad

DanC

Screenshot of the composite locator attached.

Dan

Locators.PNG

BradNiemand

It should be just a composite fix and it should only apply to 10.0 participating locators. Can you attach a screen shot of the composite after the fix?

Brad

DanC

I am having the exact same results. I have a composite locator made up of point and centerline data, and addresses that should match on the 2nd locator in the hierarchy are matching to the 4th locator. When I run the locators individually, it matches correctly to the 2nd locator. I tried modifying my composite locator fields as Brad mentions, by deleting and re-adding the street, unit, and zone fields, however that did not change my results. Do I need to apply that fix to all individual locators, or just the composite?

I am using 9.3.1 and 10 locators styles for the composite locator, mostly US Single Address with Unit and Zone.

BradNiemand

In the grammar, you would start with the highest level component. For batch geocoding it would be "MultiLineAddress" and "MultiLineZone". For single line input, it would be "Location" but there are no weights applied until you get to the "FullNormalAddress". So each component has a "weight" that is applied to it. Each top level component may contain 1 to many child components that also have a weight associated with it. All of these components get scored and contribute to the score. I will attach the presentation that my colleagues and I presented last year at the user conference that has a section about scoring to the geocoding resource center later today. I hope this helps.

http://resources.arcgis.com/gallery/file/geocoding

Brad

A little behind schedule but the above url now has the uploaded presentation. Let me know if anyone has any questions.

Brad

TracyGarrison

In the grammar, you would start with the highest level component. For batch geocoding it would be "MultiLineAddress" and "MultiLineZone". For single line input, it would be "Location" but there are no weights applied until you get to the "FullNormalAddress". So each component has a "weight" that is applied to it. Each top level component may contain 1 to many child components that also have a weight associated with it. All of these components get scored and contribute to the score. I will attach the presentation that my colleagues and I presented last year at the user conference that has a section about scoring to the geocoding resource center later today. I hope this helps.

http://resources.arcgis.com/gallery/file/geocoding

Brad

Again, thank you for your help and I will begin studying the areas you have outlined more closely. I will look for the presentation you have mentioned later today.

Thanks

BradNiemand

In the grammar, you would start with the highest level component. For batch geocoding it would be "MultiLineAddress" and "MultiLineZone". For single line input, it would be "Location" but there are no weights applied until you get to the "FullNormalAddress". So each component has a "weight" that is applied to it. Each top level component may contain 1 to many child components that also have a weight associated with it. All of these components get scored and contribute to the score. I will attach the presentation that my colleagues and I presented last year at the user conference that has a section about scoring to the geocoding resource center later today. I hope this helps.

http://resources.arcgis.com/gallery/file/geocoding

Brad

TracyGarrison

Ok what you described is a bug but I have a workaround for it.

1. From ArcCatalog, open the composite locator properties dialog for the composite that contains the 10 locators.
2. Delete all of the Zone fields from the "The Field containing:" box of the "Input Address Fields" section (See DeletedAddressFields.png).
3. Add back the all of the Zone (_city, _state, _zip) fields but pre-pend the names with an underscore (See AddAddressFields.png).
4. Remap the locators to the appropriate address fields (See RemapFields.png).
5. Click the "OK" button.

You should be good to go now.

What was happening was that the participating locators, even though you did not map the fields, know about the city, state, and zip fields. When you pass these fields in from the composite, it tries to use these fields to geocode the address. Because the locator knows about the fields but does not have any data associated with them in the locator, it deducts the score because it thinks that the values are wrong (something compared to nothing = wrong). By changing the names of the fields for the composite, the participating locators now don't know about the other fields, they don't try to use them and everything works as expected now.

Brad

Brad, Thanks for taking the time to work out this solution and your explanation as to why this problem is occurring was very informative. I have been reviewing the "Custimizing Locators in ArcGIS 10" and a lot of the "Gibberish" starts to become informative as well.

Would you be able to provide the exact section of "Gibberish" in the locator xml that computes the score from all the pieces of the address string that makes up the score?

Thanks

TracyGarrison

I was out of the office for a few days, but I will try this proposed solution the next time I have to produce a geocoded address output for one of the agencies I work with. I'll update this thread with the results.

Dan, please let us know if Brad's solution worked for you or not.

Thanks

KarynBackus

Brad,

This customization will be very helpful. For my projects, we geocode by both town and zip code but then we want to geocode remaining addresses by just one zone. I could not get the v10 composite address locator to properly apply the individual address locators because it always expected both town and zip even when an address locator was created using only 1 zone.

I will try your proposed solutions. Thank you.

Also, you may want to tag or repost this thread since the title is not representative of your very valuable solution.

DanMarrier

I was out of the office for a few days, but I will try this proposed solution the next time I have to produce a geocoded address output for one of the agencies I work with. I'll update this thread with the results.

BradNiemand

Ok what you described is a bug but I have a workaround for it.

1. From ArcCatalog, open the composite locator properties dialog for the composite that contains the 10 locators.
2. Delete all of the Zone fields from the "The Field containing:" box of the "Input Address Fields" section (See DeletedAddressFields.png).
3. Add back the all of the Zone (_city, _state, _zip) fields but pre-pend the names with an underscore (See AddAddressFields.png).
4. Remap the locators to the appropriate address fields (See RemapFields.png).
5. Click the "OK" button.

You should be good to go now.

What was happening was that the participating locators, even though you did not map the fields, know about the city, state, and zip fields. When you pass these fields in from the composite, it tries to use these fields to geocode the address. Because the locator knows about the fields but does not have any data associated with them in the locator, it deducts the score because it thinks that the values are wrong (something compared to nothing = wrong). By changing the names of the fields for the composite, the participating locators now don't know about the other fields, they don't try to use them and everything works as expected now.

Brad

AddAddressFields.png

DeletedAddressFields.png

RemapFields.png

DanMarrier

I thought my original post was clear, but it really all bubbles down to this question I asked:

"How on earth can a locator service find a match for an address when run by itself, but not when run in a composite where no locator higher than it in the hierarchy finds a match???"

There is nothing wrong with the individual locators. They do exactly what I expect them to do, so there's really no need to be merging zipcode and town information into single locators, which is what your response seemed to imply. I just want to know why an individual locator nested inside a composite can find a match for an address when used by itself, but not when inside the composite and no other locator higher up in the composite hierarchy has found a match. And for a fix to be made to this problem.

But I also understand that unless you can reproduce problems on your end, nothing can/will be done. I will try to find the time to extract a sample if I can, but I was hoping somebody else may have experienced the same problem and could at least validate it as a known issue.

BradNiemand

I've been busy working on a python script to re-structure, populate, and consolidate the TIGER 2010 related address range table to make it usable in geocoding, so haven't had time to pursue this further yet.

To answer your first question, none of the locators I specified in my post have a minimum match score of 80, so I don't know which one(s) you're talking about.

And I specifically do not want locators that use both zip and city... partly because the code snippet you provided looks like gibberish and I don't see how I can institute that without editing the locator file itself outside of the standard "Create new locator" GUI, and partly because I want to be able to use the information that tells me which locator service was used to make a match that gets stored in the output. It's easier to do that with a locator name than having to scan the standardized address output to see what was used... well, easier for the people I deliver the results to at any rate. And those scoring penalties are misleading... I purposely split up zipcode and city/town because I know that an unofficial or unincorporated town name may be in an input address list, so while it is still colloquially "correct", it comes up as "wrong" when compared to the formal town names in the underlying reference street data. There's still the issue of how scoring is applied in SP1 that jamest582 has addressed. I'm already using 9.3 locators as a workaround... but I seriously hope that the problems stated in my original post are resolved in SP2.

I would really like to help you be successful with 10 locators but I am unsure what exactly it is that you need. I understand that you have an issue with the scoring for the 10 locators but I think that I might be able to provide you with a custom style that handles things the way that you need them.

The problem with trying to create a generic solution is that it is hard to make everyone happy. The benefit of the ArcGIS 10 locators is that they are very flexible and can be configured quite easily with some effort. I do understand that you have deadlines and I would not expect you to be able to dedicate a lot of time to figuring this stuff out but I would be more than happy to provide you with a better solution. I just need to know what your requirements are.

BradNiemand

Excuse my mistake. I meant to say, are you getting matches for the locators below that have a spelling sensitivity of 80 and a minimum match score of 60?

-- US Address dual ranges, using the E911-information enhanced version of NAVTEQ roads. This locator requires a zipcode as the zone in the input addresses. It has a spelling sensitivity of 80, and a minimum match score of 60. The option to match tied candidates is active.

-- US Address dual ranges, using the E911-information enhanced version of NAVTEQ roads. This locator requires a a town or city name as the zone in the input addresses. It has a spelling sensitivity of 80, and a minimum match score of 60. The option to match tied candidates is active.

DanMarrier

Let me try and confirm the issue that you are having. Are you getting matches for the locators that have a minimum match score of 80? I would also suggest that you create one locator that has all three, city state and zip, fields mapped. In the locator itself, it uses the logic that you are trying to introduce in the composite. See below:
    <multiline_def name="multilineZone">
     <alt>
      <field_ref ref="ZIP"/>
      <elt ref="GenZIP" weight="100"/>
      <field_ref ref="City"/>
      <elt ref="OptCityNoSearch" weight="20"/>
      <field_ref ref="State"/>
      <elt ref="OptStateNoSearch" weight="20"/>
     </alt>
     <alt fallback="true">
      <field_ref ref="City"/>
      <elt ref="City" weight="40"/>
      <field_ref ref="State"/>
      <elt ref="OptState" weight="60"/>
      <field_ref ref="ZIP"/>
      <elt ref="OptZipNoSearch" weight="20"/>
     </alt>
The above section from the locator defines how zones are used for searching and scoring. In short, the locator will search on zip first and "fallback" to city, state second. This does apply scoring penalties for the components that are incorrect from each (ie. If city and state are wrong, a penalty will be applied to the zip search). This is pretty easy to configure to work differently and I can even send you an updated style to help make it function the way that you would like it to. So if you would like it to search on zip first and "fallback" to city state second but not apply scoring to the other components, I can do that.

Brad

I've been busy working on a python script to re-structure, populate, and consolidate the TIGER 2010 related address range table to make it usable in geocoding, so haven't had time to pursue this further yet.

To answer your first question, none of the locators I specified in my post have a minimum match score of 80, so I don't know which one(s) you're talking about.

And I specifically do not want locators that use both zip and city... partly because the code snippet you provided looks like gibberish and I don't see how I can institute that without editing the locator file itself outside of the standard "Create new locator" GUI, and partly because I want to be able to use the information that tells me which locator service was used to make a match that gets stored in the output. It's easier to do that with a locator name than having to scan the standardized address output to see what was used... well, easier for the people I deliver the results to at any rate. And those scoring penalties are misleading... I purposely split up zipcode and city/town because I know that an unofficial or unincorporated town name may be in an input address list, so while it is still colloquially "correct", it comes up as "wrong" when compared to the formal town names in the underlying reference street data. There's still the issue of how scoring is applied in SP1 that jamest582 has addressed. I'm already using 9.3 locators as a workaround... but I seriously hope that the problems stated in my original post are resolved in SP2.

JamesTanis

I have this bug already logged with ESRI #NIM062866

If you uninstall SP1 the problem with addresses getting high scores in the wrong zip goes away as for address not matching when using composite locators I had to use 9.3.1 address locators to fix this issue. You can download them from here and use them in 10.0

http://resources.arcgis.com/gallery/file/geocoding/details?entryID=12D8D400-1422-2418-34B0-4FE1CC06C0ED

BradNiemand

Let me try and confirm the issue that you are having. Are you getting matches for the locators that have a minimum match score of 80? I would also suggest that you create one locator that has all three, city state and zip, fields mapped. In the locator itself, it uses the logic that you are trying to introduce in the composite. See below:

    <multiline_def name="multilineZone">
     <alt>
      <field_ref ref="ZIP"/>
      <elt ref="GenZIP" weight="100"/>
      <field_ref ref="City"/>
      <elt ref="OptCityNoSearch" weight="20"/>
      <field_ref ref="State"/>
      <elt ref="OptStateNoSearch" weight="20"/>
     </alt>
     <alt fallback="true">
      <field_ref ref="City"/>
      <elt ref="City" weight="40"/>
      <field_ref ref="State"/>
      <elt ref="OptState" weight="60"/>
      <field_ref ref="ZIP"/>
      <elt ref="OptZipNoSearch" weight="20"/>
     </alt>

The above section from the locator defines how zones are used for searching and scoring. In short, the locator will search on zip first and "fallback" to city, state second. This does apply scoring penalties for the components that are incorrect from each (ie. If city and state are wrong, a penalty will be applied to the zip search). This is pretty easy to configure to work differently and I can even send you an updated style to help make it function the way that you would like it to. So if you would like it to search on zip first and "fallback" to city state second but not apply scoring to the other components, I can do that.

Brad

DanMarrier

Can you give me a bit more information? Can you give me the types of locators that you have in the composite and in what order? Are these locators built with 10.0 locator styles? What version of ArcGIS are you using? What reference data were the locators built off of (local data, Tele Atlas, NAVTEQ, etc...) as well as what region (entire US, county, state)? Also, can you provide me with some sample addresses that you are having issues with or a table of addresses that contains some issue addresses?

Brad

I'm using ArcMap 10.0 (Build 2800).

The following represents the list of individual locators in the composite in top to bottom order:

-- US Address dual ranges, using an E911-information enhanced version of NAVTEQ roads that we developed and maintain internally in SDE. This locator requires a zipcode as the zone in the input addresses. It has a spelling sensitivity of 90, and a minimum match score of 100. The option to match tied candidates is active.

-- US Address dual ranges, using an E911-information enhanced version of NAVTEQ roads that we developed and maintain internally in SDE. This locator requires a town or city name as the zone in the input addresses. It has a spelling sensitivity of 90, and a minimum match score of 100. The option to match tied candidates is active.

-- US Address dual ranges, using a 2009 version of Census TIGER roads. This locator requires a single address input and a zipcode as the zone in the input addresses. It has a spelling sensitivity of 90, and a minimum match score of 100. The option to match tied candidates is active.

-- US Address dual ranges, using the E911-information enhanced version of NAVTEQ roads. This locator requires a zipcode as the zone in the input addresses. It has a spelling sensitivity of 80, and a minimum match score of 60. The option to match tied candidates is active.

-- US Address dual ranges, using the E911-information enhanced version of NAVTEQ roads. This locator requires a a town or city name as the zone in the input addresses. It has a spelling sensitivity of 80, and a minimum match score of 60. The option to match tied candidates is active.

-- A customized dual range locator, using a 2009 version of TIGER roads, as well as the alternate address range table that is distributed with it. I had to modify an existing template to get this to work (the only templates provided by ESRI allow for an alias name table, but not an alternate source for the ranges), as well as modifying the address range table to match the schema of LFROM, LTO, RFROM, RTO for address ranges, since the census distributes data in a scheme using "FROM House Number", "TO House Number", "Side of Street (L or R)". I also performed a series of relates/joins to populate L_TOWN and R_TOWN values. The locator requires a zipcode as the zone in the input addresses. It has a spelling sensitivity of 80, and a minimum match score of 60. The option to match tied candidates is active.

-- Using the same customized 2009 TIGER locator as above, is identical in all regards except requires a town or city name as the zone instead of zipcode.

-- Finally a US Address - ZIP 5-Digit based locator, using a set of zipcode centroids and matching only on zipcode.

The rationale for using the same locator multiple times, but flipping between zipcode and town name is because the address lists I receive often contain local, colloquial, neighborhood, or unofficial community names that may not be reflected in the underlying source data. I do have a lookup table that represents my best approximation of a comprehensive list of unofficial town names in my state, but it is not always appropriate to use, since some unofficial names are the same as official names, and replacing them would lead to the mistake of replacing the correct name with an incorrect one. Furthermore, some unofficial town names correspond to more than one official town name. Zipcodes are given a higher priority as they are usually less erroneous, and also don't suffer as much from spelling typos.

The locators using the E911-enhanced NAVTEQ roads were created in Arc 10. The others were created in Arc 9. But it's the ones created in 10 that are malfunctioning. The addresses and reference data are primarily for the state of Massachusetts, but the reference data does extend a little bit beyond the borders into neighboring states.

I noticed the problem I originally stated by geocoding some addresses that were correctly matched using versions of the locators developed in Arc 9, but were not matching using virtually identical locators developed in 10. I can't readily share the reference or address data because some of it is proprietary/under license agreement, as well as the fact that the statewide datasets are prohibitively large.

For the time being, I am using a workaround, inserting some of the Arc 9 locators into the composite at a level high enough to supersede the locators providing a bad location.

FWIW, I sent a copy of the customized TIGER-based locator to the Danvers regional office to see if they could use it as the basis for a template, but I never heard back. And my deadlines allow precious little time to conduct more inhouse testing/development.

JoeBorgione

Brad- take a look a couple of threads down in the list; Dan had posted a question regarding Tiger Line data that I responded to.

I'm all ears on this as I haven't taken the plunge into the 10.x pool nor do I use Tiger data.

BradNiemand

Can you give me a bit more information? Can you give me the types of locators that you have in the composite and in what order? Are these locators built with 10.0 locator styles? What version of ArcGIS are you using? What reference data were the locators built off of (local data, Tele Atlas, NAVTEQ, etc...) as well as what region (entire US, county, state)? Also, can you provide me with some sample addresses that you are having issues with or a table of addresses that contains some issue addresses?

Brad

Nimm an der Unterhaltung teil

Angemeldete Mitglieder können Beiträge verfassen, Updates folgen und mehr. Neu hier? Registriere ein kostenloses Konto.

Schnellzugriffe

Community Help
Find useful guides, FAQs, and documents to help you navigate and make the most of Esri Community.