Page 3 of 22

Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 11:42 pm
by mkmurray
boomerbubba wrote:In the panel on the left listing the households, click on the icon representing an unverified record. You should get a pop-up giving you the option to Move, Verify or Edit.

If you are not seeing that behavior, perhaps there is a problem with LDS Account authenticating your calling credentials. It happened seamlessly for me.

When I go to the "Home" tab on the left, I can see that the software knows my exact calling, yet I don't have the feature quite as you describe. I am missing any actionable choices in the popup.

Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 11:46 pm
by mkmurray
mkmurray wrote:When I go to the "Home" tab on the left, I can see that the software knows my exact calling, yet I don't have the feature quite as you describe. I am missing any actionable choices in the popup.

I got a javascript error sending the feedback about this possible bug and the discrepancy with the help file. So I'm not sure the feedback even sent.

Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:31 am
by Mikerowaved
mkmurray wrote:I have made every single address consistent in format, namely of the form 11 S 1100 W (this is a fake address).

Is my understanding correct that there isn't much more I can expect the geocoding software to do? Or is there something I should be doing to the addresses for better accuracy?

You are pretty much done, as long as the street doesn't also have a possible alpha name assigned to it.

If there is a street name and/or number, for example, 100 S 1700 W could also be called 100 S Redwood Rd, THEN you might have a problem, as some geocoders will only have ONE in their database, and it's usually the alpha name. They are getting better, though. I think I was using Yahoo Maps the other day and typed a numeric street name and it located the correct street and even suggested the correct alpha name for it. I've never seen this before. Usually it just chokes.

Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:36 am
by RossEvans
boomerbubba wrote:
I was a bit surprised at the rough quality of the boundary for my unit. It is not even as good as the PDF maps we get from CHQ, and not as precise as my own home-built boundary map.


I'm going to amend that observation, which I made while zoomed in and panning a section of our boundary.

That section, which is supposed to follow the centerline of a slightly winding arterial street for about 2 miles, is significantly off the mark. But it comprises only a small portion of our total boundary. The rest of the boundary perimeter looks pretty good.

Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:53 am
by Mikerowaved
boomerbubba wrote:I'm going to amend that observation, which I made while zoomed in and panning a section of our boundary.

That section, which is supposed to follow the centerline of a slightly winding arterial street for about 2 miles, is significantly off the mark. But it comprises only a small portion of our total boundary. The rest of the boundary perimeter looks pretty good.

I've got the actual boundary files for many of the wards in my area and while some are fairly simple, others use over 1000 geo-points to define their ward boundaries. (And these are for Utah wards! Go out in the "real" world and I'm sure the number of points could be enormous.) With things like following meandering lines, it's possible some approximations had to be made to make it more efficient.

Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:06 am
by RossEvans
mkmurray wrote:The geocoding done by this new solution will require much manual correction for our ward, as everything clumps along the streets and both mapping providers (Microsoft and Google) don't have the latest streets nor satellite imagery of our community. I don't think this means my addresses are deficient, but just that they prove difficult to geocode with the proximity of all the housing and the missing street data.


Geocoding coverage does vary across localities even within the same geocoding engine and database. And, as Mikerowaved noted, the style of addresses used in the Wasatch Front seems to be problematical.

I am pleased to report that for my ward in Austin, most of the geocoding looks pretty good, at least along the linear dimension. (As it is on Google Maps and Google Earth.) Google's provider for my area apparently supplies parcel-level geocoding records, which are about as good as it gets.

I do wish the geocoding settings in LDSmaps provided a modest setback from the street centerline. I prefer that setting because it clearly shows which side of the street an address is on. This is more than cosmetically significant when doing GIS-based boundary work, because street centerlines are frequently used as unit boundaries. My city's public-domain address geocoding does use such an offset for most addresses. I think this is preferable to pseudo-rooftop coding, which is really parcel centroid coding. The ideal for single-family lots, I think, is to use the parcel frontage to locate the address along the street, and a modest setback. That way you get precision and retain a point useful for automated driving directions.

Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:26 am
by RossEvans
Mikerowaved wrote:I've got the actual boundary files for many of the wards in my area and while some are fairly simple, others use over 1000 geo-points to define their ward boundaries. (And these are for Utah wards! Go out in the "real" world and I'm sure the number of points could be enormous.) With things like following meandering lines, it's possible some approximations had to be made to make it more efficient.


The simplification for rendering is sometimes done algorithmically for different zoom levels in the browser/renderer. But in the case I am speaking of, the particular section is just drawn way too coarsely for decent accuracy. The most precise method to do that within a GIS editing tool is ususally to incorporate the lnes of the street (or stream, RR track, county line ...) layers themselves. An easier, but less precise way is to trace the lines freehand with segments that may not be granular enough. As I said, this was not the case with the detail of the rest of our perimeter, which in some places is even more irregular.

Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:18 am
by techgy
mkmurray wrote:In the interface, how do I mark a household as verified at it's current or new location?


I read somewhere on the beta site that permissions to modify a map location was only given to a Bishop, his counselors or the clerks in a ward. No-one in the stake (STS) or the ward executive secretary can make any changes to the locations.

Boundary moved

Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:23 am
by zaneclark
Yesterday when I first opened the site, the ward boundary line was very precise but today, although the households are still noted, the blue boundary line cuts off a whole neighborhood. I know this is still in beta so I am not too concerned..... Just an observation.

Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:42 am
by mkmurray
Techgy wrote:I read somewhere on the beta site that permissions to modify a map location was only given to a Bishop, his counselors or the clerks in a ward. No-one in the stake (STS) or the ward executive secretary can make any changes to the locations.

The reason I made the assertion I did was because in the Help file under "Authorized Leader" in the Glossary of Terms section, it says this:
Bishops, bishop's counselors, ward clerks, and assistant ward clerks are the authorized leaders who have additional rights in LDS Maps.
They can:
  • Designate ward members who have special needs that should be considered in an emergency.
  • Designate those who are emergency preparedness leaders.
  • Verify the location of members on a map or satellite image.

This is not working for my credentials.