SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences / 2020 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2

Accuracy and similarity aspects in online geocoding services: a comparative evaluation for Google and Bing maps

Batuhan KİLİC
Fatih GULGEN
Pages
109–119
Publication Date
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results show that services have different geocoding capabilities in both countries because of the differences in the addressing formats.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Geocoding is a method used to convert address information into geographical coordinates.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The same performance assessment was also made with the United States’ address data to make comparisons and discussions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results show that services have different geocoding capabilities in both countries because of the differences in the addressing formats.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Geocoding · GoogleMaps · BingMaps

Abstract

Geocoding is a method used to convert address information into geographical coordinates. It plays a vital role in displaying the relationship between geographic features and semantic information expressed in texts. The objective of this study is to reveal the quality of online geocoding from postal addresses in Turkey provided by Google Maps and Bing Maps services. The quality of geocoding services in urban areas is evaluated using two particular metrics; positional accuracy and address similarity. Positional accuracy measures the distances between point features obtained through the online geocoding and reference data. Address similarity indicates the relationship between two postal addresses based on a similarity index known as the Levenshtein distance. The same performance assessment was also made with the United States’ address data to make comparisons and discussions. The results show that services have different geocoding capabilities in both countries because of the differences in the addressing formats.

🔖

Cite This Article

KİLİC, B., GULGEN, F. (2022). Accuracy and similarity aspects in online geocoding services: a comparative evaluation for Google and Bing maps. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2, 109–119. https://ajindex.com/articles/540705

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Armstrong, M.P. and Tiwari, C. (2008). Geocoding methods, materials, and first steps toward a geocoding error budget. In Rushton G, Armstrong M P, Gittler J, Greene B R, Pavlik C E, West M M, and Zimmerman D L (eds) Geocoding Health Data: The Use of Geographic Codes in Cancer Prevention and Control, Research and Practice. Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press: 11–35.
  2. Bichler, G. and Balchak, S. (2007). Address matching bias: Ignorance is not bliss. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 30 (1), 32–60.
  3. Bilgi, S., Gulnerman, A., Arslanoğlu, B., Karaman, H. and Ozturk, O. (2019). Complexity measures of sport amenities allocation in urban area by metric entropy and public demand compatibility. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences, 4 (3), 141–148.
  4. Cayo, M.R. and Talbot, T.O. (2003). Positional error in automated geocoding of residential addresses. International Journal of Health Geographics, 2 (10). Cetl, V., Kliment, T. and Jogun, T. (2016). A comparison of address geocoding techniques–a case study of the city of Zagreb, Croatia. Survey Review, 50 (359), 97–106.
  5. Chow, T.E., Dede-Bamfo, N. and Dahal, K.R. (2016). Geographic disparity of positional errors and matching rate of residential addresses among geocoding solutions. Annals of GIS, 22 (1), 29–42.
  6. Goldberg, D.W., Ballard, M., Boyd, J.H., Mullan, N. Garfield, C., Rosman, D., Ferrante, A.M. and Semmens, J.B. (2013). An evaluation framework for comparing geocoding systems. International Journal of Health Geographics, 12 (1), 50. Haines, E. (1994). Point in polygon strategies. Graphics gems IV, 994, 24–26.
  7. Hart, T.C. and Zandbergen, P.A. (2013). Reference data and geocoding quality: Examining completeness and positional accuracy of street geocoded crime incidents. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 36 (2), 263–294.
  8. Karimi, H.A., Durcik, M. and Rasdorf, W. (2004). Evaluation of uncertainties associated with geocoding techniques. Computer‐Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 19 (3), 170–185.
  9. Kilic, B. and Gulgen F. (2017). Coğrafi Kodlama için Adres Standardizasyonu. 16. Türkiye Harita Bilimsel ve Teknik Kurultayı. 3-6
  10. May, Ankara,
  11. Turkey. Kilic, B. and Gulgen F. (2019). Türkiye’de Kullanılan Posta Adres Bilgilerinde Uyum Düzeylerinin Belirlenmesi. Harita Dergisi, 161, 26–34.
  12. Levenshtein, V.I. (1966). Binary Codes Capable of Correcting Deletions, Insertions, and Reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady, 10 (8), 707–710.
  13. Li, B., Zhang, X. and C