KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / 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
Sayfa
109–119
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

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

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Geocoding is a method used to convert address information into geographical coordinates.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The same performance assessment was also made with the United States’ address data to make comparisons and discussions.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The results show that services have different geocoding capabilities in both countries because of the differences in the addressing formats.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler: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.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

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

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (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