Plan 626: Advanced GIS in Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning
GIS MAPS (ALL ASSIGNMENTS) Submitted By – Avinash Shrivastava
Table of Contents Lab Assignment 01 – Census Exercise……………………………..…………………………………………………………….Page 01 Lab Assignment 02 – Geo‐coding Exercise………….………………………..……………………………………………….Page 02 Lab Assignment 03 – Descriptive Spatial Analysis………………………………………………………………………….Page 04 Lab Assignment 04 – Analyzing Spatial Patterns and Clusters………………………………………………………..Page 05 Lab Assignment 05 – Spatial Analyst Functions……………………………………………………………………………..Page 09 Lab Assignment 06 – Network Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………Page 19
Census Exercise
Legend tl_2009_48041_bg00 Vacancy Rate 0.00 - 5.00 5.01 - 10.00 10.01 - 15.00 15.01 - 20.00 20.01 - over
0 1.5 3
6
9
Scale - 1:350,000
Miles 12
ÂŻ
Geog 626: Lab Assignment 01, Submitted By: Avinash (Avi) Page 1 Course Instructor: Douglas F. Wunneburger
Geog 626: GEOCODING EXERCISE
Avinash Shrivastava
Geocoding Result: By US Streets
Geocoding Result: By Parcel Data
• • •
• •
•
•
1
Geocoding quality is compared using three address data models: address points, parcels and street networks.1 Evaluating geocoding quality is based on completeness, positional accuracy and repeatability.1 ‘The most commonly used approach to geocoding employs a street network data model, in which addresses are placed along a street segment based on a linear interpolation of the location of the street number within an address range.’1 Results indicate that address street network geocoding match rates are much higher as compared to parcel geocoding produced much lower match rates. ‘Variability in geocoding match rates between address databases and between geographic areas is substantial, reinforcing the need to strengthen the development of standards for address reference data and improved address data entry validation procedures.’1 However, in my opinion, parcel geocoding should be used more as it is more specific, has higher positional accuracy and hence lower match rates. Though address street network geocoding match rates are higher than parcel geocoding match rates, but it might have greater chances of repeatability. Thus parcel geocoding should be used for geocoding quality.
Abstract: ‘A comparison of address point, parcel and street geocoding techniques’ by Paul A. Zandbergen
Page 2
Geog 626: GEOCODING EXERCISE
Avinash Shrivastava
Page 3
DESCRIPTIVE SPATIAL STATISTICS
) ! (
# *!(
)
Legend )
BC_Tracts_MeanCenter_MDHHY0
)
BC_Tracts_MeanCenter_MDHHY9
! (
BC_Tracts_MeanCenter_2000
! (
BC_Tracts_MeanCenter_1997 BC_Tracts
# *
BC_Tracts_CentralFeature1 BC_Tracts_DirectionalDistrib_1997 BC_Tracts_DirectionalDistrib_2000 BC_Tracts_DirectionalDistrib_MDHHY9 BC_Tracts_DirectionalDistrib_MDHHY0 Export_Output_Brazos TexasCensusTracts
0 1.5 3
6
9
Miles 12
Scale - 1:350,000
ÂŻ
Geog 626: Lab Assignment 03, Submitted By: Avinash (Avi) Page 4 Course Instructor: Douglas F. Wunneburger
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Global Moran’s I Results
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
While usin ng the closestt facility toolss in Network Analyst, I obsserved that th he closest mid ddle school located frrom the pointt of incident n not the closesst one. As a m matter of fact,, it is the seco ond nearest school. Also, the route e illustrated byy this closest facility tool is not the shortest route. B By looking at tthe d. BISD_Streeets feature cclass, it seemss that another short route exists which was not used Why was the closest m middle school and shortestt route not ussed by the Network Analysst tool? Answer:
Page 20