Latest Contributions by BradNiemand

What is the intersection that you are trying to find?  I did find a couple tweeks that I can do with the locator style to fix this, but I want to verify that it works for your type of address. Brad ... View more

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 ... View more

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 ... View more

It was added to allow for an extra field to be carried along while geocoding.  It can be used for anything really. Brad ... View more

You have no problem reverse geocoding through ArcMap but you get an error when you add the locator to the "Reverse Geocode" tool?  Can you try to connect to ArcGIS Online? The link below has information on how to add the locator to ArcMap. http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=8b980709e0534bb39784dc42f550d554 Brad ... View more

It depends on what mechanism you are using to geocode.  If you are using the find dialog, you will get multiple candidates when you geocode.  The find dialog returns all candidates that are above the minimum match score, if the "Show all candidates" checkbox is unchecked, and all candidates above the minimum candidate score if the "Show all candidates" checkbox is checked. If you are batch geocoding, the composite locator will only return the first candidate that returns with a score above the minimum match score. I hope this clarifies the situation. Brad ... View more

Have you tried ArcGIS Online?  The North American Geocoding Service contains Canada. Brad ... View more

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 ... View more

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. ... View more

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. ... View more

If you are using projected data, this is a known issue and has been put into SP2.  You can try and create the composite locator in a file folder and see if that works. Brad ... View more

ArcGIS 10 locators don't support standardization. Brad ... View more

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 ... View more

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 ... View more

Unfortunately, you will need to use a different web browser to download the file.  If you give me your email address, I can also email it to you. Brad ... View more