Jump to content

 
Photo

Batch Geocoding

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1
Nick Springer

Nick Springer

    CartoTalk Founder Emeritus

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 939 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Crosswicks, NJ
  • Interests:Cartographic Design, Print Maps, Graphic Design, Web Development, Ultimate Frisbee
  • United States

"Need to geocode a bunch of US and Canadian addresses on the fly? I just used [url="http://"http://www.batchgeocode.com/"]http://www.batchgeocode.com/[/url] and it worked great! "

Nick Springer

Director of Design and Web Applications: ALK Technologies Inc.
Owner: Springer Cartographics LLC


#2
Matthew Hampton

Matthew Hampton

    Hall of Fame

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,302 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon
  • Interests:Playing in the mountains and rivers.
  • United States

"This is a very interesting development from P.K. Holmstrand.

He has a blog that's worth checking out too.

[url="http://"http://batchgeocode.blogspot.com/"]http://batchgeocode.blogspot.com/[/url] "

co-cartographic creator of boringmaps.com


#3
benbakelaar

benbakelaar

    Ultimate Contributor

  • Associate Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 658 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Brunswick, NJ
  • Interests:maps, information, technology, scripting, computers
  • United States

Very very nice! I still use my hacked Google lat/long lookup, but why even bother with this easy to use system?

BTW Nick, the language of your post sounds suspiciously like a plug! ;)

#4
benbakelaar

benbakelaar

    Ultimate Contributor

  • Associate Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 658 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Brunswick, NJ
  • Interests:maps, information, technology, scripting, computers
  • United States

"Just
a quick report, I used this to do about 1100 addresses. It tells you it
functions best in batches of a maximum of 500, so I split the job into
3 batches. As far as a web service goes, this is amazing, it continues
until the whole job is done, even though for one batch of 500 it might
even take 10 minutes! After completing and putting back together all 3
batches, I checked for missing/unreturned values, and there were only
25. I was quite surprised, being that I have geocoded this information
using ArcWEB and stand-alone ArcMap as well, and definitely came across
more NOT FOUND's. So that makes me wonder whether the ""matches"" are as
accurate as ArcWEB/ArcMap, and whether Yahoo has implemented a sort of
""best guess"" algorithm (or even worse, a ""just match it to SOMETHING""
algorithm) to boost their ""match"" numbers. "

#5
Martin Gamache

Martin Gamache

    Ultimate Contributor

  • Associate Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 980 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington DC
  • Interests:History of Topographic Cartography
    Topographic Mapping
    History of Relief Depiction
    Thematic Cartography
    Demographic Cartography
    Cartographic techniques, methods, and tools
    Orienteering
    Panoramic & Kite Photography
  • United States

I'd be interested if someone does an accuracy check on this.

Say randomly select 10% of the values and check them against good/known sources. Otherwise I'd be really reluctant to use it.



#6
JimBlakeslee

JimBlakeslee

    Key Contributor

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Location:Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
  • Interests:Interactive Map Applications: Flash, MySQL, PHP, etc.
  • United States

"This is simply a (very useful) interface to Yahoo's Geocoding API. Yahoo uses NAVTEQ data.

So
the question is not how accurate is BatchGeocoding.com, rather: how
accurate is NAVTEQ data. Becuase: Good data is harder to come by than
good software coding.

[Heck, even we wrote our own geocoder in PHP: see [url="http://"http://www.downtownbethesda.com/guide/address.php"]http://www.downtownbethesda.com/guide/address.php[/url] and try a Bethesda address from elsewhere in the site. It even corrects for bad spelling most of the time.]

For
cartographic representation, I am always less interested with pure
geocoding accuracy, and more interested with making sure to use the
exact same dataset for display mapping as for geocoding.

For
example, it is a poor idea to use the geocoder.us (CENSUS TIGER based)
to perform geocodes that you map with the Google API (NAVTEQ based). If
the road is off a few feet, for example, the dot could wind up on the
wrong side of the road. Or in a river.

"

#7
benbakelaar

benbakelaar

    Ultimate Contributor

  • Associate Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 658 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Brunswick, NJ
  • Interests:maps, information, technology, scripting, computers
  • United States

"

For 
cartographic representation, I am always less interested with pure 
geocoding accuracy, and more interested with making sure to use the 
exact same dataset for display mapping as for geocoding.

http://


I
think that's a good point Jim, but for instance, in ArcMap I mapped all
these street addresses, and got plenty that were unmapped due to a 55%
match (default is 60%). So I guess what I am wondering is, does Yahoo's
API set a lower match threshold to boost numbers. Of course, ArcMap was
using some subset of TIGER data I'm sure, and NAVTEQ is a different
database. But still the question is valid (I think). "

#8
JimBlakeslee

JimBlakeslee

    Key Contributor

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Location:Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
  • Interests:Interactive Map Applications: Flash, MySQL, PHP, etc.
  • United States

Because
of differences in data acquisition processes, it is true that NAVTEQ
data is likely to have many more addresseable segments than TIGER data.


But if the difference Ben is finding is purely attributable to
different data sources, or whether it is a result of a different
geocoding software process, is hard to say.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

-->