Verification status of a changed address

Discussions about the Maps Tool on lds.org.
User avatar
nbflint
Member
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:07 pm

Postby nbflint » Fri Apr 13, 2012 8:29 am

Biggles wrote:I find that using Google Earth/Street View is a great tool to be able to use to verify. No fuel usage, no air pollution etc.. Done then at my schedule.


Google Earth doesn't show the house number though, does it? If not, how does it help you to verify that the map is locating the address correctly. I have found that I can only verify addresses that I have been to.


User avatar
Biggles
Senior Member
Posts: 1176
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 4:14 am
Location: Watford, England

Postby Biggles » Fri Apr 13, 2012 8:37 am

nbflint wrote:Google Earth doesn't show the house number though, does it? If not, how does it help you to verify that the map is locating the address correctly. I have found that I can only verify addresses that I have been to.


In the majority of cases, certainly in the UK which has horrible street numbering, it is possible to work it out by going along a line of houses and getting a number then working out the correct one. It's not always easy, but as I stated before I can do it at my schedule. I did say using Street View, didn't I?

RossEvans
Senior Member
Posts: 1346
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 8:52 pm
Location: Austin TX
Contact:

Postby RossEvans » Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:41 am

nbflint wrote:Google Earth doesn't show the house number though, does it? If not, how does it help you to verify that the map is locating the address correctly. I have found that I can only verify addresses that I have been to.


This is getting off-topic onto the general issue of how to verify addresses. But you might also try the Quick Geocoder at GPSVisualizer for a single address. Use the default Google geocoding, and pay attention to the detailed report that comes back. It should tell you how precise the Google geocoding was. (The Google geocoder's API that is doing the work reports when it is guessing.)

A reported status of "(precision: address)" on that tool should be reliable. Zoom in and eyeball the plotted location, then -- if need be -- drag the marker on maps.lds.org to that location and mark it "Verified." It may be that you can only verify it as "Approximately verified" if the precision is not good enough.

User avatar
egowen
New Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:06 pm
Location: Fort Valley, GA
Contact:

Postby egowen » Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:34 pm

My preference for a rule set to cover this issue would be:

Any time there is a change to an address where the assigned ward does not change and if the location was verified, ask if the change was merely to standardize the address or if it represented an actual household move. If the change was due to standardization then leave the marker where it was and leave it verified. If the change was an actual household movement, relocate the marker, make it unverified and notify the user that the marker has been re-positioned and is now unverified.

Any time there is a change to an address where the assigned ward does not change and if the location was not verified, re-position the marker and notify the user that the marker has been automatically re-positioned and remains unverified.

These actions should be taken regardless of whether the change was made through MLS or the web application.

It would be nice if an address change initiated through the web application that looked to place a member outside of their assigned ward or branch would generate a message through MLS than an address change had been made that might necessitate a MLS Move.
Regards,

Bishop Gowen
--------------------------------
Edward J Gowen Jr
Perry Ward, Georgia, USA

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 26206
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:52 pm

egowen wrote:Any time there is a change to an address where the assigned ward does not change and if the location was verified, ask if the change was merely to standardize the address or if it represented an actual household move. If the change was due to standardization then leave the marker where it was and leave it verified. If the change was an actual household movement, relocate the marker, make it unverified and notify the user that the marker has been re-positioned and is now unverified.


A good suggestion. But please note all the steps it would take to implement: The question has to be added to MLS. The communication between MLS and CHQ has to be modified to carry the question. The new data has to be picked up by the mapping application and "understood". It also requires some training for the clerks on the meaning of this question and the ramifications.

The church developers work on many projects, presumably prioritized. The more complex the change requested, the longer it will be before it happens.
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.

So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.

epage
New Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 6:23 am
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Postby epage » Sun May 20, 2012 9:40 am

I finally got fed up with this enough to check the forums to see if this was reported. I was surprised that this is a considered a feature and not a bug. To anyone that isn't an original developer of this software, this is unintuitive (think "Principle of Least Surprise") and defeats the purpose of such a tool.

When you have people constantly moving (I'm in a singles ward but some of our family wards are similar) it is a waste of time to manually update it. Now add on top of that a 25%+ turn over every 6 months, there is no way people are going to even "verify" the locations (similar to how pointless it was keeping a picture directory up to date before pictures transfered wards with you). The website doesn't even make it clear why we need to verify and why it matters on maps but not the directory.

The idea of this tool is great. Elders Quorum presidents can get a better feel for how well home teaching is geographically distributed; FHE committee chairs can use it to divide the ward into FHE groups; and so on. Unfortunately because of this problem this amazing feature of lds.org is useless for my ward and I imagine quite a few other wards (singles like my ward, student married, low income, etc).

User avatar
aebrown
Community Administrator
Posts: 15097
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Sandy, Utah

Postby aebrown » Sun May 20, 2012 10:14 am

epage wrote:I finally got fed up with this enough to check the forums to see if this was reported. I was surprised that this is a considered a feature and not a bug. To anyone that isn't an original developer of this software, this is unintuitive (think "Principle of Least Surprise") and defeats the purpose of such a tool.


I can certainly see how the process for validating addresses could be improved. But in no way does this defeat the whole purpose of the tool. A clerk has to update the address when a member moves within the ward. The clerk simply needs to have the discipline to also verify the map location when this happens. It's not that hard.
Questions that can benefit the larger community should be asked in a public forum, not a private message.

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 26206
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Sun May 20, 2012 1:36 pm

aebrown wrote:The clerk simply needs to have the discipline to also verify the map location when this happens. It's not that hard.


To add what Alan is saying, there's only a few ways a member's address can change. When they first move in, the system tries to place the marker at it's best guess and marks it "unverified". But all further changes to the address is done by a clerk at the MLS computer. If you have the discipline and office procedures in place, then you'd know when you have to move a verified marker. The trick here is to limit the number of people who can edit the member's address.

(And for the record, yes, I'd like to see the current way it works changed.)
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.

So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.

epage
New Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 6:23 am
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Postby epage » Sat May 26, 2012 6:52 am

RussellHltn wrote:To add what Alan is saying, there's only a few ways a member's address can change. When they first move in, the system tries to place the marker at it's best guess and marks it "unverified". But all further changes to the address is done by a clerk at the MLS computer. If you have the discipline and office procedures in place, then you'd know when you have to move a verified marker. The trick here is to limit the number of people who can edit the member's address.

(And for the record, yes, I'd like to see the current way it works changed.)


I sure hope they end up changing it. I'm not a fan of the "apply discipline" approach:

1. DRY: We already changed it in one location, why do we need to change it in another?

2. Our clerk computers work fine for MLS but are slow browsing any modern website. If I am changing an address through the website, it is usually on my phone while I am moving the person or passing a leader in the hallway and a phone doesn't work all that well for updating the maps.

3. There isn't any kind of button in the maps to guess again at the new location. Instead you have to drag it around and hope you get close enough to where the house address is (which means you also need google maps up)

4. I'm always hoping this is a fluke that will end soon but for the last couple years we've not even kept a membership clerk for longer than 4 months (and our stake takes several months to respond to calling changes). Oddly as the executive secretary I end up picking up the slack. So (1)-(3) are more annoying when it isn't even your calling.


Return to “Maps”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest