Araştırma Makalesi
PDF Zotero Mendeley EndNote BibTex Kaynak Göster

Yıl 2020, Cilt 5, Sayı 2, 109 - 119, 01.06.2020
https://doi.org/10.26833/ijeg.629381

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
https://doi.org/10.26833/ijeg.629381

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. 

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.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Mühendislik, Ortak Disiplinler
Bölüm Articles
Yazarlar

Batuhan KILIÇ
Yildiz Technical University
0000-0002-0529-8569
Türkiye


Fatih GÜLGEN (Sorumlu Yazar)
Yildiz Technical University
0000-0002-8754-9017
Türkiye

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Haziran 2020
Yayınlandığı Sayı Yıl 2020, Cilt 5, Sayı 2

Kaynak Göster

Bibtex @araştırma makalesi { ijeg629381, journal = {International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences}, issn = {}, eissn = {2548-0960}, address = {}, publisher = {Murat YAKAR}, year = {2020}, volume = {5}, pages = {109 - 119}, doi = {10.26833/ijeg.629381}, title = {ACCURACY AND SIMILARITY ASPECTS IN ONLINE GEOCODING SERVICES: A COMPARATIVE EVALUATION FOR GOOGLE AND BING MAPS}, key = {cite}, author = {Kılıç, Batuhan and Gülgen, Fatih} }
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 . DOI: 10.26833/ijeg.629381
MLA Kılıç, B. , Gülgen, F. "ACCURACY AND SIMILARITY ASPECTS IN ONLINE GEOCODING SERVICES: A COMPARATIVE EVALUATION FOR GOOGLE AND BING MAPS" . International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences 5 (2020 ): 109-119 <https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ijeg/issue/52679/629381>
Chicago Kılıç, B. , Gülgen, F. "ACCURACY AND SIMILARITY ASPECTS IN ONLINE GEOCODING SERVICES: A COMPARATIVE EVALUATION FOR GOOGLE AND BING MAPS". International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences 5 (2020 ): 109-119
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - ACCURACY AND SIMILARITY ASPECTS IN ONLINE GEOCODING SERVICES: A COMPARATIVE EVALUATION FOR GOOGLE AND BING MAPS AU - Batuhan Kılıç , Fatih Gülgen Y1 - 2020 PY - 2020 N1 - doi: 10.26833/ijeg.629381 DO - 10.26833/ijeg.629381 T2 - International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 109 EP - 119 VL - 5 IS - 2 SN - -2548-0960 M3 - doi: 10.26833/ijeg.629381 UR - https://doi.org/10.26833/ijeg.629381 Y2 - 2019 ER -
EndNote %0 International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences ACCURACY AND SIMILARITY ASPECTS IN ONLINE GEOCODING SERVICES: A COMPARATIVE EVALUATION FOR GOOGLE AND BING MAPS %A Batuhan Kılıç , Fatih Gülgen %T ACCURACY AND SIMILARITY ASPECTS IN ONLINE GEOCODING SERVICES: A COMPARATIVE EVALUATION FOR GOOGLE AND BING MAPS %D 2020 %J International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences %P -2548-0960 %V 5 %N 2 %R doi: 10.26833/ijeg.629381 %U 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
AMA Kılıç B. , Gülgen F. ACCURACY AND SIMILARITY ASPECTS IN ONLINE GEOCODING SERVICES: A COMPARATIVE EVALUATION FOR GOOGLE AND BING MAPS. IJEG. 2020; 5(2): 109-119.
Vancouver Kılıç B. , Gülgen F. ACCURACY AND SIMILARITY ASPECTS IN ONLINE GEOCODING SERVICES: A COMPARATIVE EVALUATION FOR GOOGLE AND BING MAPS. International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences. 2020; 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", International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences, c. 5, sayı. 2, ss. 109-119, Haz. 2020, doi:10.26833/ijeg.629381

Cited By