I think #2 does what I did

Post #241,815 by ben_tilly 1/18/06 9:02:40 PM Reply	I think #2 does what I did I only used geocoding because it was free for me and I had code for it. I was using it to turn an address into a location, and using that to match addresses. But if you can standardize addresses another way, go for it. For my project I was able to ignore the name issue - I was just merging several lists into one, and needed to spit out "these aren't duplicated" and "these may be, look them over by eye". So it was only semi-automated. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #241,819 by broomberg 1/18/06 9:10:51 PM Reply	Your geocoding process standardized first When we geocode stuff, 1st step is to standardize. They just did it for you under the covers.
Post #241,821 by ben_tilly 1/18/06 9:26:04 PM 1/18/06 9:28:16 PM Reply	Exactly Come to think of it, I really did need the geocoding. There is a problem with apartment buildings where on one lot you have 2 buildings with different addresses, but they're really the same. So I counted as possible dupes to review any two that were close. (I used "within adjacent 100' by 100' boxes, so that range was 100-300 feet.) That I couldn't have done without geocoding, but it was only a nice to have anyways. And it obviously doesn't apply in this case. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother) Edited by ben_tilly Jan. 18, 2006, 09:28:16 PM EST Expand All History

Welcome to IWETHEY!