Hi, I've built a new address locator in ArcGIS 10.5 using the US Dual Ranges locator style. It's a simple locator that use the intersection, city and state. However, it is giving strange results for some intersections of numbered streets such as 98th St, 223rd St, 71st St, etc. You can see in the screenshots below, where I am trying to match Avion Dr & 98th St.
Avion Dr & 98th St:
Setting the match score very low shows the only candidates that are shown are actually StreetAddress types that have no relevance to the location.
98th St & Avion Dr:
However, switching the primary and secondary roads, it actually does return an accurate set of results.
Avion Dr & 98th:
Alternatively, if I remove the St suffix from 98th, it also returns accurate results.
It seems like a pretty basic intersection search, but obviously the results for the original format are bogus. The locator results work fine for non-numbered style streets. I have been using a locator built in 10.3 and it works very well. There's no way I can update to a 10.5 format with these results. Does anyone have any ideas or seen this before? I've been exploring editing the USAddress.lot file, but don't think this scenario should require that.
Do you get the same behavior if you build the locator in ArcGIS Pro 1.4 and use it in ArcMap or ArcGIS Pro?
Does the behavior occur when using the Find tool in ArcMap or is it limited to batch geocoding with the 10.5 Dual Ranges locator?
So I tried building in ArcGIS Pro 1.4, but get the same result using the locator in Pro or ArcMap. However, as you suggested, all the locators did work properly using the Find tool as shown below. I guess that means the error is limited to batch geocoding and the rematch address dialog. Any suggestions based on this or is it probably a bug?
Thanks for you help.
Does the behavior with the intersections occur when batch geocoding the table in Pro with either the locator created in ArcMap or in Pro 1.4? I'd like to determine if this is locator or application specific. I've not heard anything from Support regarding this behavior. Are you able to send a sample of the data to me or contact Support for further investigation?
Yes, the same behavior occurs batch geocoding in Pro with either locator so it appears locator specific to me. I was able to open a new support case today and provided a sample data set: #01932334.
I can update this thread when I find out more info.