<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Address Locator efficiency in Geoprocessing Questions</title>
    <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/geoprocessing-questions/address-locator-efficiency/m-p/236775#M8084</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have an &lt;STRONG&gt;Address&lt;/STRONG&gt; point feature class and a &lt;STRONG&gt;Place Name&lt;/STRONG&gt; point feature class.&amp;nbsp; Each has an address locator built for it and participates in a composite address locator along with a street center line locator and several other locators.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="min-height: 8pt; padding: 0px;"&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;My question is, is it more efficient this way - to have a separate point feature class for the &lt;STRONG&gt;Place Name&lt;/STRONG&gt; data - or should the &lt;STRONG&gt;Place Name&lt;/STRONG&gt; data be just a table that is used as an alias table inside the initial Address point locator?&amp;nbsp; It works as is, but I'm wondering about efficiency and best practices.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2015 16:25:43 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>LakeGIS</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2015-02-10T16:25:43Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Address Locator efficiency</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/geoprocessing-questions/address-locator-efficiency/m-p/236775#M8084</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have an &lt;STRONG&gt;Address&lt;/STRONG&gt; point feature class and a &lt;STRONG&gt;Place Name&lt;/STRONG&gt; point feature class.&amp;nbsp; Each has an address locator built for it and participates in a composite address locator along with a street center line locator and several other locators.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="min-height: 8pt; padding: 0px;"&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;My question is, is it more efficient this way - to have a separate point feature class for the &lt;STRONG&gt;Place Name&lt;/STRONG&gt; data - or should the &lt;STRONG&gt;Place Name&lt;/STRONG&gt; data be just a table that is used as an alias table inside the initial Address point locator?&amp;nbsp; It works as is, but I'm wondering about efficiency and best practices.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2015 16:25:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/geoprocessing-questions/address-locator-efficiency/m-p/236775#M8084</guid>
      <dc:creator>LakeGIS</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-02-10T16:25:43Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Address Locator efficiency</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/geoprocessing-questions/address-locator-efficiency/m-p/236776#M8085</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Define efficient. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Personally, I see place names and address points as two very different feature classes, even if you have duplicate points in the two.&amp;nbsp; I keep mine separate, and in a composite with centerlines dispatch 2000 +- 911 calls a day.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:03:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/geoprocessing-questions/address-locator-efficiency/m-p/236776#M8085</guid>
      <dc:creator>JoeBorgione</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-02-10T18:03:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

