Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2, 109 - 119, 01.06.2020

Batuhan Kılıç Fatih Gülgen

https://doi.org/10.26833/ijeg.629381
Cited By: 6

Öz

Kaynakça

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Kilic, B. and Gulgen F. (2017). Coğrafi Kodlama için Adres Standardizasyonu. 16. Türkiye Harita Bilimsel ve Teknik Kurultayı. 3-6 May, Ankara, Turkey.
  • Kilic, B. and Gulgen F. (2019). Türkiye’de Kullanılan Posta Adres Bilgilerinde Uyum Düzeylerinin Belirlenmesi. Harita Dergisi, 161, 26–34.
  • Levenshtein, V.I. (1966). Binary Codes Capable of Correcting Deletions, Insertions, and Reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady, 10 (8), 707–710.
  • Li, B., Zhang, X. and Chen, Y. (2010). Automatic construction and visualization of address models. In 2010 Sixth International Conference on Natural Computation (Vol. 6, pp. 2894-2897), IEEE.
  • McElroy, J.A., Remington, P.L., Trentham-Dietz, A., Robert, S.A. and Newcomb, P.A. (2003). Geocoding addresses from a large population-based study: lessons learned. Epidemiology, 14 (4), 399–407.
  • Mitchell, R. (2015). Web scraping with Python: collecting data from the modern web. O'Reilly Media, Inc.
  • Mulazimoglu, E. and Basaraner, M. (2019). Usercentred design and evaluation of multimodal tourist maps. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences, 4 (3), 115–128.
  • Qin, X., Parker, S., Liu, Y., Graettinger, A.J. and Forde, S. (2013). Intelligent geocoding system to locate traffic crashes. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 50, 1034–1041.
  • Ratcliffe, J.H. (2004). Geocoding crime and a first estimate of a minimum acceptable hit rate. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 18 (1), 61–72.
  • Rodrigues, F. (2010). POI Mining and Generation. PhD Thesis. Faculty of Sciences and Technology (FCTUC) Department of Informatics Engineering - University of Coimbra. Portugal.
  • Roongpiboonsopit, D. and Karimi, H.A. (2010a). Comparative evaluation and analysis of online geocoding services. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 24 (7), 1081–1100.
  • Roongpiboonsopit, D. and Karimi, H.A. (2010b). Quality assessment of online street and rooftop geocoding services. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 37 (4), 301–318.
  • Rushton, G., Armstrong, M.P., Gittler, J., Greene, B.R., Pavlik, C.E., West, M.M. and Zimmerman, D.L. (2006). Geocoding in cancer research: a review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30 (2), S16–S24.
  • Tian, Q., Ren, F., Hu, T., Liu, J., Li, R. and Du, Q. (2016). Using an Optimized Chinese Address Matching Method to Develop a Geocoding Service: A Case Study of Shenzhen, China. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 5 (5), 65.
  • Ward, M.H., Nuckols, J.R., Giglierano, J., Bonner, M.R., Wolter, C., Airola, M., Mix, W., Colt, J.S. and Hartge, P. (2005). Positional accuracy of two methods of geocoding. Epidemiology, 16 (4), 542–547.
  • Yang, D.H., Bilaver, L.M., Hayes, O. and Goerge, R. (2004). Improving geocoding practices: evaluation of geocoding tools. Journal of Medical Systems, 28 (4), 361–370.
  • Yildirim, V., Yomralioglu, T., Nisanci, R. and Inan, H. (2014). Turkish street addressing system and geocoding challenges. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 167 (2), 99–107.
  • Zandbergen, P.A. and Green, J.W. (2007). Error and bias in determining exposure potential of children at school locations using proximity-based GIS techniques. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115 (9), 1363–1370.
  • Zandbergen, P.A. (2008). A comparison of address point, parcel and street geocoding techniques. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 32 (3), 214–232.
  • Zandbergen, P.A. (2011). Influence of street reference data on geocoding quality. Geocarto International, 26 (1), 35–47.
  • URL 1. Google Maps Platform – Geocoding API documentation, https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/geocoding/start?hl+=+de, accessed on 3 October 2019.
  • URL 2. Bing Maps Dev Center – Find location by address (geocode), https://www.bing.com/api/maps/sdk/mapcontrol/isdk/searchbyaddress, accessed on 3 October 2019.

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

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2, 109 - 119, 01.06.2020

Batuhan Kılıç Fatih Gülgen

https://doi.org/10.26833/ijeg.629381
Cited By: 6

Öz

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. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Geocoding GoogleMaps BingMaps Positional accuracy Levenshtein distance

Kaynakça

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Kilic, B. and Gulgen F. (2017). Coğrafi Kodlama için Adres Standardizasyonu. 16. Türkiye Harita Bilimsel ve Teknik Kurultayı. 3-6 May, Ankara, Turkey.
  • Kilic, B. and Gulgen F. (2019). Türkiye’de Kullanılan Posta Adres Bilgilerinde Uyum Düzeylerinin Belirlenmesi. Harita Dergisi, 161, 26–34.
  • Levenshtein, V.I. (1966). Binary Codes Capable of Correcting Deletions, Insertions, and Reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady, 10 (8), 707–710.
  • Li, B., Zhang, X. and Chen, Y. (2010). Automatic construction and visualization of address models. In 2010 Sixth International Conference on Natural Computation (Vol. 6, pp. 2894-2897), IEEE.
  • McElroy, J.A., Remington, P.L., Trentham-Dietz, A., Robert, S.A. and Newcomb, P.A. (2003). Geocoding addresses from a large population-based study: lessons learned. Epidemiology, 14 (4), 399–407.
  • Mitchell, R. (2015). Web scraping with Python: collecting data from the modern web. O'Reilly Media, Inc.
  • Mulazimoglu, E. and Basaraner, M. (2019). Usercentred design and evaluation of multimodal tourist maps. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences, 4 (3), 115–128.
  • Qin, X., Parker, S., Liu, Y., Graettinger, A.J. and Forde, S. (2013). Intelligent geocoding system to locate traffic crashes. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 50, 1034–1041.
  • Ratcliffe, J.H. (2004). Geocoding crime and a first estimate of a minimum acceptable hit rate. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 18 (1), 61–72.
  • Rodrigues, F. (2010). POI Mining and Generation. PhD Thesis. Faculty of Sciences and Technology (FCTUC) Department of Informatics Engineering - University of Coimbra. Portugal.
  • Roongpiboonsopit, D. and Karimi, H.A. (2010a). Comparative evaluation and analysis of online geocoding services. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 24 (7), 1081–1100.
  • Roongpiboonsopit, D. and Karimi, H.A. (2010b). Quality assessment of online street and rooftop geocoding services. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 37 (4), 301–318.
  • Rushton, G., Armstrong, M.P., Gittler, J., Greene, B.R., Pavlik, C.E., West, M.M. and Zimmerman, D.L. (2006). Geocoding in cancer research: a review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30 (2), S16–S24.
  • Tian, Q., Ren, F., Hu, T., Liu, J., Li, R. and Du, Q. (2016). Using an Optimized Chinese Address Matching Method to Develop a Geocoding Service: A Case Study of Shenzhen, China. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 5 (5), 65.
  • Ward, M.H., Nuckols, J.R., Giglierano, J., Bonner, M.R., Wolter, C., Airola, M., Mix, W., Colt, J.S. and Hartge, P. (2005). Positional accuracy of two methods of geocoding. Epidemiology, 16 (4), 542–547.
  • Yang, D.H., Bilaver, L.M., Hayes, O. and Goerge, R. (2004). Improving geocoding practices: evaluation of geocoding tools. Journal of Medical Systems, 28 (4), 361–370.
  • Yildirim, V., Yomralioglu, T., Nisanci, R. and Inan, H. (2014). Turkish street addressing system and geocoding challenges. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 167 (2), 99–107.
  • Zandbergen, P.A. and Green, J.W. (2007). Error and bias in determining exposure potential of children at school locations using proximity-based GIS techniques. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115 (9), 1363–1370.
  • Zandbergen, P.A. (2008). A comparison of address point, parcel and street geocoding techniques. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 32 (3), 214–232.
  • Zandbergen, P.A. (2011). Influence of street reference data on geocoding quality. Geocarto International, 26 (1), 35–47.
  • URL 1. Google Maps Platform – Geocoding API documentation, https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/geocoding/start?hl+=+de, accessed on 3 October 2019.
  • URL 2. Bing Maps Dev Center – Find location by address (geocode), https://www.bing.com/api/maps/sdk/mapcontrol/isdk/searchbyaddress, accessed on 3 October 2019.
Toplam 32 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Bölüm Articles
Yazarlar

Batuhan Kılıç 0000-0002-0529-8569

Fatih Gülgen 0000-0002-8754-9017

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Haziran 2020
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2020 Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2

Kaynak Göster

APA Kılıç, B., & Gülgen, F. (2020). Accuracy and similarity aspects in online geocoding services: a comparative evaluation for Google and Bing maps. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences, 5(2), 109-119. https://doi.org/10.26833/ijeg.629381
AMA Kılıç B, Gülgen F. Accuracy and similarity aspects in online geocoding services: a comparative evaluation for Google and Bing maps. IJEG. Haziran 2020;5(2):109-119. doi:10.26833/ijeg.629381
Chicago Kılıç, Batuhan, ve Fatih Gülgen. “Accuracy and Similarity Aspects in Online Geocoding Services: A Comparative Evaluation for Google and Bing Maps”. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences 5, sy. 2 (Haziran 2020): 109-19. https://doi.org/10.26833/ijeg.629381.
EndNote Kılıç B, Gülgen F (01 Haziran 2020) Accuracy and similarity aspects in online geocoding services: a comparative evaluation for Google and Bing maps. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences 5 2 109–119.
IEEE B. Kılıç ve F. Gülgen, “Accuracy and similarity aspects in online geocoding services: a comparative evaluation for Google and Bing maps”, IJEG, c. 5, sy. 2, ss. 109–119, 2020, doi: 10.26833/ijeg.629381.
ISNAD Kılıç, Batuhan - Gülgen, Fatih. “Accuracy and Similarity Aspects in Online Geocoding Services: A Comparative Evaluation for Google and Bing Maps”. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences 5/2 (Haziran 2020), 109-119. https://doi.org/10.26833/ijeg.629381.
JAMA Kılıç B, Gülgen F. Accuracy and similarity aspects in online geocoding services: a comparative evaluation for Google and Bing maps. IJEG. 2020;5:109–119.
MLA Kılıç, Batuhan ve Fatih Gülgen. “Accuracy and Similarity Aspects in Online Geocoding Services: A Comparative Evaluation for Google and Bing Maps”. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences, c. 5, sy. 2, 2020, ss. 109-1, doi:10.26833/ijeg.629381.
Vancouver Kılıç B, Gülgen F. Accuracy and similarity aspects in online geocoding services: a comparative evaluation for Google and Bing maps. IJEG. 2020;5(2):109-1.

Cited By

Unveiling the impact of machine learning algorithms on the quality of online geocoding services: a case study using COVID-19 data
Journal of Geographical Systems
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10109-023-00435-8
How do young people move around in urban spaces?: Exploring trip patterns of generation-Z in urban areas by examining travel histories on Google Maps Timeline
Travel Behaviour and Society
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2023.100686
Geocoding Applications for Social Science to Improve Earthquake Early Warning
Seismica
https://doi.org/10.26443/seismica.v2i2.527
Development of an Algorithm to Evaluate the Quality of Geolocated Addresses in Urban Areas
ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi12100407
Effects of reverse geocoding on OpenStreetMap tag quality assessment
Transactions in GIS
https://doi.org/10.1111/tgis.13089
tidygeocoder: An R package for geocoding
Journal of Open Source Software
Jesse Cambon
https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03544