topic Geocoding -- 10 vs 10.1 in Data Management Questions

Geocoding -- 10 vs 10.1

MarkParr — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 18:22:36 GMT

I am running 10.1 ArcDesktop Standard and testing geocoding of some existing Shapefiles. I have some previous 10 locator files that still exist and that work when I do an address FIND search. I am defining my 10.1 locator files using the exact same paramaters/fields previously used for the original 10 locators. However, when I do an address FIND with my new locator, the results consistently return nothing back. If I search using the older 10 created locator I get results.

Any ideas?

Re: Geocoding -- 10 vs 10.1

MarkParr — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 19:42:58 GMT

Just an update: I have a new set of shapefiles that I have not done any processing with in either 10 or 10.1 before today. I was not having any luck w/ these shapefiles while trying to geocode/find addresses using 10.1 which is why I tried some other shapefile data w/ version 10 locators previously defined. I copied these shapefiles files over to a PC still running ArcView 10, created an address locator using the the US Streets - Dual Range locator type and same field names that I was using with the 10.1 locator that continually does not find anything. The version 10 location successfully returned a test address point when doing an address find from within ArcView 10.

Re: Geocoding -- 10 vs 10.1

BruceHarold — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:58:42 GMT

Hello Mark

Please log a support call on this issue, and if you can, share the shapefiles you are using.

Regards

Re: Geocoding -- 10 vs 10.1

SergeyBayshev — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 08:54:31 GMT

Experiencing same kind of problem using a composite locator built of 4 custom address locators. Everything is working fine and we are getting results with ArcGIS 10.
In ArcGIS 10.1 the locators are building without any errors, but only 1 of 4 locators returns results. No results returning for the rest 3 locators.

Re: Geocoding -- 10 vs 10.1

MarkParr — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:35:39 GMT

Experiencing same kind of problem using a composite locator built of 4 custom address locators. Everything is working fine and we are getting results with ArcGIS 10.
In ArcGIS 10.1 the locators are building without any errors, but only 1 of 4 locators returns results. No results returning for the rest 3 locators.

I created an incident w/ Support last Fri. Still waiting on a resolution but the word from the intial tech was that he was seeing the same issue. Post from him yesterday made it sould like the issue was being pushed up to someone higher in the support process................

Re: Geocoding -- 10 vs 10.1

MichaelRivera — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 13:21:02 GMT

I am also having big problems geocoding in 10.1
I wasn't sure if factors like the roads shapefile road name field being in upper / lower case so I added a new field in the roads all upper case road name. I then did the same with road type. These roads have a issue where some road ranges are correct with a from-left of 1 and a to-left of 99 for instance, some are reversed. I don't know why the address ranges are like that. I built a dual range address locater in 10.1 and only 2 adresses matched out of 30,621.

A co-worker built an address locater in 10 and she ran it against the crime database using the same roads and she had a 58% match.

I used her 10 locator in 10.1 and I got a 53% match.

Why did her 10 locator work so much better than my 10.1 locator?

Re: Geocoding -- 10 vs 10.1

MarkParr — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 13:55:27 GMT

Michael:

Not sure what is going on w/ the locators between 10 and 10.1 -- I am still waiting on an answer from ESRI support. Still haven't spoken to the second tier support person that the first tier person indicated might be calling.

As a test, I created a centerline/street layer shapefile from scratch consisting of 2 intersecting streets and 4 line segment (1-100 and 101-200 N MAIN ST and 1-100 and 101-200 W ELM ST), created a dual range street locator for these segments, and could not find any address that I typed..................

That was with 10.1 -- I have not moved that layer over to 10 yet to try.

I would suggest create your locator in 10 and use it in 10.1 if you need to proceed w/ anything that you are doing.

Re: Geocoding -- 10 vs 10.1

MarkParr — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:51:02 GMT

Just got off the phone w/ ESRI technical support.

Turns out this problem is a bug or two that will be resolved in 10.1 SP1 when it's released. No ETA on that release at this point.

In the meantime, the solution is to provide a City and State (even if it's just dummy values) as part of your Dual Range locator creation and use those during your address search and the geocoding should work.

Re: Geocoding -- 10 vs 10.1

MarkParr — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 19:55:34 GMT

Just tested the recommended solution and it worked. I was actually able to create a locator w/ just the "City" as part of my Address Locator in 10.1 and have the Find command find the address. City, State also worked when I included that in the locator and the Find/Search.

Re: Geocoding -- 10 vs 10.1

MichaelRivera — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:24:07 GMT

That is great news.

Glad there is a workaround and glad it will be addressed in the next service pack.

Re: Geocoding -- 10 vs 10.1

ShanaBritt — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:48:56 GMT

A standard practice that I have seen when it comes to geocoding addresses at the local level is to create an address locator that does not include zonal attributes (city, state, zip, emergency service number, community name.... are not mapped in the field mapping) and just find or geocode a list of addresses with just the house number and street name. The reason that the locators created without zone field mappings based on the Dual Range locator style at 10.1 do not find any matches is because the default setting for the 'supportsOptionalZone' property in the rules is set to false/no. This property determines whether or not addresses will be found or matched if a zone is not included in the input address in the geocoding toolbar, find tool, or batch geocoding.

To enable the supportsOptionalZone property of an existing address locator created at 10.1 use the following steps. Setting this option to "yes" will affect the performance for larger geographies.

1. In ArcCatalog or the Catalog window, right-click the address locator
2. Click Propertiesâ?¦
3. In the Geocoding Options section change 'Match with no zones' from â??noâ?? to â??yesâ??

Locator performance properties

-Shana B

Re: Geocoding -- 10 vs 10.1

MarkParr — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 21:40:28 GMT

A standard practice that I have seen when it comes to geocoding addresses at the local level is to create an address locator that does not include zonal attributes (city, state, zip, emergency service number, community name.... are not mapped in the field mapping) and just find or geocode a list of addresses with just the house number and street name. The reason that the locators created without zone field mappings based on the Dual Range locator style at 10.1 do not find any matches is because the default setting for the 'supportsOptionalZone' property in the rules is set to false/no. This property determines whether or not addresses will be found or matched if a zone is not included in the input address in the geocoding toolbar, find tool, or batch geocoding.

To enable the supportsOptionalZone property of an existing address locator created at 10.1 use the following steps. Setting this option to "yes" will affect the performance for larger geographies.

1. In ArcCatalog or the Catalog window, right-click the address locator
2. Click Propertiesâ?¦
3. In the Geocoding Options section change 'Match with no zones' from â??noâ?� to â??yesâ?�

[ATTACH=CONFIG]17330[/ATTACH]

Locator performance properties

-Shana B

That seems to make a difference as well. Thanks for the info.

Re: Geocoding -- 10 vs 10.1

JamesHarrington — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 15:59:49 GMT

I've spent many hours trying all these options without any luck. Really disappointed in 10.1

Re: Geocoding -- 10 vs 10.1

BenjaminHarper — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:00:51 GMT

I've been using a v10.0 composite locator, running in 10.1 and have had ArcMap repeatedly crash when I try to geocode a batch from a file gdb table, only 46 records. The table has street, city, state and zip code fields. Composite locator is on machine and not as service, so not a time out-issue. The locator is made up of one dual range street and two point locators. All have "match with no zones = yes". This same locator used to work fine in 10.0 without fail. I found that the input mappings were all set to <None> for each participating locator, which in 10 appeared to have pre-loaded address fields. Was the change to no pre-loaded fields a change from 10 to 10.1? Do I need to do this for other locators?

Best,
Ben H.[ATTACH=CONFIG]17698[/ATTACH]

Re: Geocoding -- 10 vs 10.1

deleted-user-vpHnfyiCToFz — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:46:27 GMT

I do not see bug #NIM081790 being addressed in ArcGIS 10.1 SP1. Can someone from ESRI confirm that this will indeed be fixed in sp1?

Re: Geocoding -- 10 vs 10.1

KevinBell — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 19:55:29 GMT

To enable the supportsOptionalZone property of an existing address locator created at 10.1 use the following steps. Setting this option to "yes" will affect the performance for larger geographies.

1. In ArcCatalog or the Catalog window, right-click the address locator
2. Click Propertiesâ?¦
3. In the Geocoding Options section change 'Match with no zones' from â??noâ?� to â??yesâ?�

-Shana B

This IS NOT fixing my basic dual range geocoder that works in 10... Big Bummer. I guess I better alert my co-workers!

Re: Geocoding -- 10 vs 10.1

AdrianaMcMullen — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 14:53:20 GMT

I am in Canada and have a table of addresses that I am trying to geocode. In the past I had not had any difficulty creating a locator service using a road network file that identified the address ranges for the left and right side of individual street segments.

I've created a new address locator using the dual range style based on a road network file that seems to match up well with the builder (it correctly identifies the fromleft, toleft, fromright, toright fields, as well as the streetname).

After building it, then I try to use it with a table that has the address data with house number, streetname, street type in separate fields, and also together. However when I try to use the address locator the input field name showing on the left is streets.

Then when I run it, nothing gets placed. I've changed the zone setting, and nothing.

Any suggestions?

Re: Geocoding -- 10 vs 10.1

ShanaBritt — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:15:48 GMT

This IS NOT fixing my basic dual range geocoder that works in 10... Big Bummer. I guess I better alert my co-workers!

I would suggest contacting Support to have a look at your address locator created at version 10 to see why it is not working in 10.1. Doesthe problem persist if the address locator is recreated at version 10.1 and changing the 'Match with no zones' property?

-Shana B

Re: Geocoding -- 10 vs 10.1

FrancoisGoulet — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 13:49:04 GMT

Encounter those problem as well.

Changed 'Match with no zones' from "no" to "yes". Rebuilded my locator (individuals and composite). Tried to bo a locator package, ...
I still have 100% No Match every time I run it. BUT (there's a but), if I open the Interactive Rematch window and then do a "Rematch Automatically", it's working!!!

Thought I'd let you know...

Re: Geocoding -- 10 vs 10.1

IsaacBoates — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:00:02 GMT

A standard practice that I have seen when it comes to geocoding addresses at the local level is to create an address locator that does not include zonal attributes (city, state, zip, emergency service number, community name.... are not mapped in the field mapping) and just find or geocode a list of addresses with just the house number and street name. The reason that the locators created without zone field mappings based on the Dual Range locator style at 10.1 do not find any matches is because the default setting for the 'supportsOptionalZone' property in the rules is set to false/no. This property determines whether or not addresses will be found or matched if a zone is not included in the input address in the geocoding toolbar, find tool, or batch geocoding.

To enable the supportsOptionalZone property of an existing address locator created at 10.1 use the following steps. Setting this option to "yes" will affect the performance for larger geographies.

1. In ArcCatalog or the Catalog window, right-click the address locator
2. Click Propertiesâ?¦
3. In the Geocoding Options section change 'Match with no zones' from â??noâ?� to â??yesâ?�

Locator performance properties

-Shana B

Oh my God thank you, I've been beating my head against the wall for over an hour wondering why nothing would match.