Updating Address After Moving

[jdlessley]

In post #27 I posted that I ran into three situations. I have now discovered a fourth situation. It is variation of rontilby's post #26. Part of the error problem is with MLS for addresses input by units sending a household with an address to another unit. That is a topic for another thread but I thought I'd mention it here.

We had family move in about two months ago. The household was pushed to us from their previous ward who provided the new address for the move. No action was taken on our end because the address appeared to be a valid local address. The household appeared in the directory portion of the Maps application as verified (no icon to the right of the name).

There was a problem with the address however. In MLS the city was in the Address 2 field and the abbreviation for the state was in the City field. The state field had the full state name as it should. Anyone reading the address on Maps or even the Directory (the online application) would have to pick up on the additional state abbreviation to know anything was not standardized. MLS did not report a non-standard address for correction.

Of course I did not check the household location marker on the map for Maps shortly after the family moved in. When I finally did catch the address error yesterday morning I corrected it in MLS. The household still appeared as verified in Maps today and the household location marker appeared at the old address location in another state even though the address was correctly displayed in the household callout.

As has been noted by another poster, the marker was moved and the verified status changed to unverified when the address was changed in Leader and Clerk Resources. In this case the zip code was updated to the 9-digit zip from the 5-digit.

[aebrown]

I have now discovered a fourth situation.

Could you help me understand how this is different from what you described as the first situation, which is the basic topic of this thread? If I understand correctly, the location of the marker was exactly as has been described in most of the cases in this thread: the location was verified in the previous ward, and so the marker is still stuck in the previous ward, even though the address was changed via MLS. In this case the new address was set by the ward that moved the records out (and there was something odd about the way that ward put the address in the various address fields), but the behavior in Maps is exactly the same.

[jdlessley]

In this case the new address was set by the ward that moved the records out (and there was something odd about the way that ward put the address in the various address fields), but the behavior in Maps is exactly the same.

I don't believe there was an address error for any of the reported cases in this thread. There have been reported cases where the location marker was still in the previous ward and the household showed as unverified but had a valid local address. And there have been reported cases where the location marker was still in the previous ward and the household showed as verified and had a valid local address. But there has been no cases reported where the location marker was still in the previous ward, showed verified in the current ward, but had an address error. In this last case the failure to move the location marker is associated with the invalid address. Even with an invalid address the Maps program should show the household status as unmapped and no location marker displayed.

[aebrown]

In this last case the failure to move the location marker is associated with the invalid address.

How do you know that? Do you have information outside what you posted that shows that the location marker was not verified by the previous ward? Everything you've said leads me to think that it was indeed verified by the previous ward.

Even with an invalid address the Maps program should show the household status as unmapped and no location marker displayed.

I'll agree with that. But given the current way that verified locations are treated, I would think that the status would remain as "verified" for a household moved in to your ward, regardless of whether the address is valid or invalid.

[jdlessley]

In this last case the failure to move the location marker is associated with the invalid address.

How do you know that? Do you have information outside what you posted that shows that the location marker was not verified by the previous ward? Everything you've said leads me to think that it was indeed verified by the previous ward.

I did not say the invalid address is the cause of the failure to move the marker. I merely observed that this is a parameter for another case where the marker does not move. The address error is associated with a household where the marker does not move. I do not know what the parameters are to cause a household marker to remain at a previous location. I am merely providing data from observation. I am making no conclusions.

I am confused by the apparent contradiction between the second question and the third sentence. The answer to the second question is I do know that the household location was verified in the previous ward because I asked. There is nothing that I wrote that should indicate that the household location was not verified in the previous ward.

But given the current way that verified locations are treated, I would think that the status would remain as "verified" for a household moved in to your ward, regardless of whether the address is valid or invalid.

What do you mean by that? Are you saying this is the way the system should work? Or are you saying the system is not functioning correctly? I hope the latter because a household that moves from one ward to another should have the verified status reset. If the address is valid then the status should be unverified until verified. If the address is invalid then the status should be unmapped.

[aebrown]

I did not say the invalid address is the cause of the failure to move the marker. I merely observed that this is a parameter for another case where the marker does not move.

When you said "In this last case the failure to move the location marker is associated with the invalid address" I incorrectly assumed that when you said "associated with" you were implying "caused by"; thanks for clarifying this. I now understand that you were saying that the failure to move the location marker was caused by the same bug that has been discussed throughout this thread -- a verified location remains verified even after a change of ward.

I am confused by the apparent contradiction between the second question and the third sentence. The answer to the second question is I do know that the household location was verified in the previous ward because I asked. There is nothing that I wrote that should indicate that the household location was not verified in the previous ward.

There's no contradiction. I was just trying to understand the situation and exploring different possibilities. Previously you said that "The household appeared in the directory portion of the Maps application as verified"; now you've explained that it indeed was verified by the previous ward. So that makes the situation clear.

What do you mean by that? Are you saying this is the way the system should work? Or are you saying the system is not functioning correctly? I hope the latter because a household that moves from one ward to another should have the verified status reset. If the address is valid then the status should be unverified until verified. If the address is invalid then the status should be unmapped.

You chose not to quote my previous statement, which was "I'll agree with that [Your statement that 'even with an invalid address the Maps program should show the household status as unmapped and no location marker displayed.']" I most certainly don't think that a verified location should remain verified when a household moves to a new ward. I was simply stating that "given the current way that verified locations are treated" the validity of the address supplied by the ward that moves the record out has no impact on this issue; a verified location remains verified. That's not the way I or anyone else wants it to work.

The bottom line is that we're in complete agreement about how it does work and how it should work. Thanks for clearing up my confusion about what you were saying.

[atamido]

What I have experienced recently as a ward clerk is that:
1. The map location (orange dot) is verified correctly in another ward.
2. The household moves into my ward, and I request and receive the records.
3. The map location (orange dot) REMAINS VERIFIED at the OLD LOCATION (even after waiting a few days).

This leaves Map users in my ward confused about where the newly arrived household is living and whether they're actually in the ward. And leaves me with no indication that the orange dot may be at the wrong location and needs to be updated.

This is my biggest issue at the moment. I've been tasked with fixing the location of markers on our ward's map. They don't have to be exact to a house, but they should be within 100ft. I am not a ward clerk, so I don't have the ability to make the necessary changes directly. I am a website administrator, (that is not my calling and was only done to help with another task of getting photos into the directory) but that doesn't seem to give me any special powers in the mapping application.

My current plan is to create a spreadsheet of households and "corrected" addresses that are more likely to map correctly, and then hand that off to a ward clerk to copy/paste into MLS. But there are a number of households that have a correct address, but still show up at their previous location, and my plan will do nothing to fix those.

I found that if I edited their membership record from the lds.org Sign in (as the bishop, I can do this) and didn't change anything, that their geocode was updated and their dot moved to their new address. Automagically.

Is the bishop the only one that can do this, or can counselors/clerks also perform this task? What are the steps to do this (ie, what is clicked on from the lds.org homepage)? I don't have permissions to do this so I have no idea what is involved, but if I can create step-by-step instructions with a list of people, then I'm sure I can get someone to do it.

[atamido]

I don't think the issue you described will be resolved any time soon or even at all.
I have discussed this a number of times in this forum and sent messages directly to CHQ about it, and it seems there are a number of folks who don't see this as an issue. The thing is that many wards regularly verify addresses (i.e. change the marker from what was automatically positioned to a more accurate location). If MLS were to trigger a new automatic position change every time the address is updated (even for just to correct a spelling error, etc.) it might be a problem for them (they'd have to move the marker back to where it was originally verified). At this point, I'm just glad that there is a way to auto re-map without having to verify every incorrect location (by the way, if the address description is correct, there's no need for you to actually edit the data - just edit/save). It's a bit of a pain, but better than having to verify each address.

This is most definitely broken, a change in MLS should absolutely trigger a new geocode. What you're describing as a process is simply wrong, addresses should not be verified with an incorrect address or errors in the address. That's the whole point of the verification.

[russellhltn]

This is most definitely broken, a change in MLS should absolutely trigger a new geocode. What you're describing as a process is simply wrong, addresses should not be verified with an incorrect address or errors in the address. That's the whole point of the verification.

You're preaching to the choir. I don't think anyone likes the way it currently works.

[jdlessley]

My current plan is to create a spreadsheet of households and "corrected" addresses that are more likely to map correctly, and then hand that off to a ward clerk to copy/paste into MLS.

I have two suggestions. The first is that you only concern yourself with correcting invalid addresses or known incorrect address formatting. Determining whether and address is properly formatted in MLS without the necessary permissions to edit membership records is nearly impossible for some formatting errors. For example if the City is in the "Street 2" field instead of the City field you cannot see this in the online directory or in maps. Yet this error will cause mapping issues. The most likely of which is an unmapped location.

The second suggestion is to not only provide the corrected address to the clerk but include the geographic coordinates. Providing the coordinates is about the best way to ensure the correct mapping location. You can provide the coordinates for household locations that have correct and properly formatted addresses yet do not map accurately or correctly.

Getting the coordinates can be done either by going to the address with a GPS enabled device that provides coordinate readout or by using online GIS mapping provided by local government agencies. I use the latter because our county provides an accurate online county GIS and addressing map. Only individual apartment addresses cannot be verified by the county map.

Is the bishop the only one that can do this, or can counselors/clerks also perform this task?

The bishop, ward clerk, assistant ward clerk, and assistant ward clerk - membership can do this.

What are the steps to do this?

1. Sign in to LDS.org
2. Click either Leader Resources or Clerk Resources from the Tools menu.
3. Click "Member List" in the Membership menu item
4. Find a member of the household by either of these methods -
   - Entering the name starting with the surname in the "Find member in list:" text box. As you type the list is shortened as the possible name matches are reduced.
   - Scroll the window list of names until the desired name appears.
5. Click the desired name from the list.
6. Click the Edit icon next to the "Contact Information" label in the "Individual" tab.

The steps listed is just one method of getting to a record to edit. There are different routes, but other methods vary only slightly.