AnsweredAssumed Answered

Geocoding with Alternate Names

Question asked by jborgion Champion on Sep 13, 2019
Latest reply on Nov 12, 2019 by jborgion

I have created a US Dual Range with Alt Names style address locator and I'm seeing a problem when I try to match with the alternate names. In an earlier post it was explained that the Alt names table needed map the same fields in the alt names table to the  primary table.


The problem I'm having happens when I create the locator in python (pointing to 10.6 or Pro 2.4 arcpy) or when I use the Create Address Locator tool in ArcMap 10.6.


In addition to my address range fields, my primary table (centerlines feature class) has:






My alt names table is identical to the list above. When I enter the address of 93 E Greenwood Ave ( or provide it in a table of addresses) it comes back as such with a 100% match.  However, when 93 E 7500 S is the address, I get dinged 10 points and the returned address is in the form of 93 E 7500 AVE S.  I hope this isn't expected behavior.


This happens when I interactively use the Locate Tool in Pro, the find address tool in 10.6 or when geocode a table.


I tried calculating the SufType field in my alt names table to <Null> but the same problem persists.


How do I convince the locator to drop the SufType and give me the 100% match I should be getting?


Shana Britt

Eric Anderson


Edited to add:  I also used the ArcGIS Pro 2.4 Create Locator tool and got the same sort if return but the score is better: