Hamlets, CDP, Zip Codes

Moderators: delilush, orbitc, PhantomSoul

Re: Hamlets, CDP, Zip Codes

Postby whoaitspete » Thu Sep 26, 2019 12:07 pm

DrivingWithBill wrote:
DrivingWithBill wrote:I was following up to see if there was any updates on the hamlet testing in Suffolk County, its been several months and I was hoping that there was more of a clear picture or feedback available at this time?


It’s been two weeks and no feedback from ANY New York State Managers. Disappointing to try and advance this topic and get complete radio silence.


I sent you a message during this timeframe explaining the situation and that testing is not complete. I have not had a chance to write up a more formal set of results for a full forum post.
[ img ][ img ][ img ] [ img ][ img ] [ img ]
CM: USA | SM: NY | LAM: PA
whoaitspete
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 468
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 5:05 am
Location: NY & PA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 145 times

Re: Hamlets, CDP, Zip Codes

Postby whoaitspete » Sun Sep 29, 2019 4:21 am

At the moment, there is not a full update on the testing, as the results are still fairly complex and other projects had taken priority for some time (e.g. toll prices). Most of the findings so far just reinforce what we have already discussed.

- It does seem that the using the combination hamlets/villages as PCN seems to cover the majority of situations. Most of the time, hamlet/village matches mailing address. Almost all of these hamlets/villages are already in place on Long Island from the import and Google picks up most of the exceptions. Beacuse of this, making these changes aren't going to make a big difference in Nassau/Suffolk, as most of the examples I have seen over time would still be an exception after the changes above (though I don't mean to diminish the importance; all little fixes do add up). I think the more drastic/noticeable changes are going to be your neighborhood names in the city (e.g. Jamaica, Queens), which some one more familiar with the city would have to test.

- The rollout of the new search results method has not seemed to change any of the tested results, though the occasional unlinked GMaps result is depreciated compared to our incorrect city place name (which requires a cleanup of places in general after a pattern is decided and ensuring places are linked)

- Exceptions have popped up, similar to our previous examples. Currently, I'm trying to determine whether they are a rare exception that we can fix as situations pop up with RPPs/alt names/place address fields, or if it's a more common occurrence that may be beyond the currently abilities of the editor (or at least without making a major mess).

- Almost every ZIP code smudges the pattern mentioned in the first bullet, but it seems the hamlet/village names are used at addresses within their respective boundaries (i.e., multiple mailing cities are used within a single ZIP code along the lines of the first bullet). There seems to be some smudging on border roads (see next bullet).

- Lots of the hamlet/village borders are roads. If we go with this pattern, every border will have to be checked to ensure if has both city names. How we decide primary vs alt will require some work. It may be as simple as mailing address happening to match on both sides (which seems to happen at least 1/3 of the time), it may be which side has more addresses, or perhaps just simply pick one and go with it.


I am busy over the next few weeks, so there won't be much progress on this for at least a month unfortunately.
[ img ][ img ][ img ] [ img ][ img ] [ img ]
CM: USA | SM: NY | LAM: PA
whoaitspete
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 468
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 5:05 am
Location: NY & PA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 145 times

Previous

Return to New York

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users