1 / 17

Suitability of the USPS Delivery Sequence File as a Commercial Building Frame

Suitability of the USPS Delivery Sequence File as a Commercial Building Frame Stephanie Eckman, Michael Colicchia, Colm O’Muircheartaigh Introduction USPS Delivery Sequence File Access through ADVO and other companies >140 million addresses Research on use as HU frame

benjamin
Télécharger la présentation

Suitability of the USPS Delivery Sequence File as a Commercial Building Frame

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Suitability of the USPS Delivery Sequence File as a Commercial Building Frame Stephanie Eckman, Michael Colicchia, Colm O’Muircheartaigh

  2. Introduction • USPS Delivery Sequence File • Access through ADVO and other companies • >140 million addresses • Research on use as HU frame • O’Muircheartaigh, Iannacchione and others • Can increase accuracy and reduce cost compared to traditional listing • Commercial building frame?

  3. Design of Test • 11 segments across the country • In-field listing of commercial buildings • December 2006 • Compare to ADVO database

  4. Multiplicity • ADVO contains addresses • But we are interested in buildings • Multiple addresses, one building • Office building • Strip mall • Multiple buildings, one address • Corporate complex

  5. Multiple Addresses, One Building

  6. Multiple Addresses, One Building

  7. Multiple Addresses, One Building

  8. Multiple Addresses, One Building

  9. Multiple Addresses, One Building

  10. Multiple Buildings, One Address

  11. Multiple Buildings, One Address

  12. Results: Counts • Ratio of ADVO to listed buildings • Overall 90% • Ranged from 17% in very rural segment to 184% • Causes of Ratio ≠ 100% • Undetected multiplicities • Overcoverage by ADVO • Undercoverage by ADVO • Undercoverage by lister

  13. Maps: Segment 1 • Red dots indicate listed building not on ADVO • ADVO has no coverage in northern half • Can identify such areas for us

  14. Maps: Segment 2

  15. Conclusions • Findings similar those for residential addresses • Rural undercoverage • Lister error • Additionally: un-owned areas • Obvious ADVO advantage is cost

  16. Conclusions • ADVO in all segments • ADVO + listing in under-covered segments • ADVO + reconciliation listing • Similar to enhanced listing • In sample of segments or all segments • Field listing

  17. Thank you

More Related