SeeClickFix uses ESRI for map and our town has wrong name because of it
Hi Sara,
In the description you said you work for the Town of Carolina Shores, and in the email signature we see both Town of Carolina Shores as well as Carolina Shores, NC 28467.
When you say that the town is incorrect, or listed incorrectly, can you provide screenshots and some more details about what that means?
I see Carolina Shores on the basemap. Is this supposed to say Town of Carolina Shores? Or is Carolina Shores correct? And is it in the correct location?
When I search in Google Maps for zip code 28467 this is what I see:
and searching in arcgis.com for zip code 28467 I see this:
When I visualize Populated Places from the Geographic Names Information System (Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) - USGS National Map Downloadable Data Collection - Data.g... ) it looks like the basemap is correct.
Based on the above, I'm assuming the issue you're reporting is specific to the zip code search?
USPS provides the following
I went over to SeeClickFix and if I'm on a submit screen and need to search for a different area, this is the experience I see when searching solely by zip code:
Is that what you're referring to? The suggestion for 28467 that includes only Calabash and not Carolina Shores? Assuming that, I went to the geocoding feedback basemap, and found the following:
The description of the error says "Area shows as Calabash in SeeClickFix instead of Carolina Shores". It would be helpful to get screenshots from SeeClickFix, along with the corresponding URLs that provide more details about what and where the issue is in SeeClickFix, so that our teams can understand if this is something that can be corrected in our databases.
Sorry for the long-winded response, but it took me a while to get to this point, and I may still be making assumptions about the problem you're trying to convey. Thank you in advance for taking the time to provide further details to help us understand the issue.
I apologize, I was using my email to reply. Here is what I attached. 
This is a perennial problem for many jurisdictions. We went through the process of providing our data to the ESRI basemaps team, and they were spectacular in terms of support, feel like I had a dedicated consultant working with us, but then we found out that they do a cyclic update using (HERE! Teledata? ??) commercial services, and replaced our authoritative and accurate data with unvetted and very inaccurate data, which actually leads to some pretty significant public safety issues (e.g a 911 caller looking at some app on their phone saying they're at Sasquatch Overlook, we can't get a ping off their phone, and it turns out they're really at Bigfoot Overpass). The solution was (is) for us to have to continually keep updating the basemap program, which is not sustainable, and led to us developing our own tile basemap service.
But not to uniquely throw ESRI under the bus, we have the same problem with all of the location based service providers, and provide very detailed messaging to the public about why those maps should not be relied upon in our jurisdiction, and additional very detailed steps on how to access authoritative and accurate location-based products.
As a fine-tune to the idea, the idea should be:
When a jurisdiction provides authoritative data to the ESRI basemap program, that data should not then be overwritten by data from a non-authoritative, un-verified source.
I had some email exchanges with the BM team regarding re-correcting our data in the BM, but again, my workload is such that I just can't keep up with having to re-vet our already submitted data once or twice a year. This thread may be the motivation I need to follow up on that, but I'd need confidence that ESRI is not going to continue to overwrite our data and expose users of their map products to hazards or destruction of our property and resources by overwriting our data with inaccurate and misleading data.
Perhaps an additional idea would be modifying the basemap partner dashboard to alert jurisdictions that data is about to change, or provide a click-once-per-year checkbox or something....
The problem with the feedback link provided is "...we'll forward the feedback to our data provider to be addressed in an update." we have spoken directly with many of the data providers (I think there's 2 or 3), and they have told us directly that they do not consider our data sources, and refused to provide details on how they're mapping, for example, a non-existent road going straight up a mountain.
Another problem, and I'm fuzzy on the reason for this, but I vaguely remember the BM team telling me because of licensing, they could only show our data at certain zoom levels (e.g if I'm at zoom level X, the non-existent road will be shown), AND, our authoritative data would only be included in the tiled base maps, we have no input into the streets product.
Looking at the examples below, I have to wonder what QA process allowed this?
