You could use a buffer procedure. I would create a new table to hold the buffer objects instead of ISSUE.TAB. We could call it Issue_Buffers.TAB. Give it the same structure by creating it from the Issue table. Have this new table editable, all 3 open. Select all from the Issue table. Then Objects>buffer objects, set it to buffer each object, set buffer distance to only what is needed, 1 meter sounds like it would work. The buffer regions only will be created in the new table (Issues_Buffers), and it will have the same data associated with the original points (be sure to check Value for each field when the buffers are created). Then query thusly: select * from Issues_Buffers, Addresses where Issues_Buffers.obj contains Addresses.obj
I assume that Issue.ID <> Addr_ID, else you would select * from issue, address where ISSUE_ID = ADDR_ID William "Woody" Woodruff Zoning Administrator Charter Township of Union, Isabella County, Michigan -84.80947000 43.61095100 2010 S Lincoln Rd, Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858 (989) 772 4600 EXT 41 - FAX (989) 773 1988 Visit our web site at http://www.geocities.com/ctuzoning/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Munro, Alison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 3:00 PM To: [email protected] Subject: MI-L Coordinate shift in Geocoding process I have an address point table in coord system UTM-NAD83/Zone 17. I am geocoding an issue table against it, using an address field in each table for the matching. About 25% of the issues geocode against the addresses, which is acceptable for my purposes. After geocoding I save a copy of the issue table, also projected into UTM-NAD83/Zone 17. (I have also tried NOT saving in UTM, with no difference in the result below). So far, so good. Now for the problem. I want to select the ADDR_ID and ISSUE_ID pairs from the two tables by finding the coincident points. Since the issues were geocoded against the addresses, and about 1180 matched, this should not be a problem. However when I perform an SQL-query with where clause "AddressPoints.obj Intersects VXSISSUES_geo.obj", I only get 5 matches. I have also tried CONTAINS, CONTAINS ENTIRELY, WITHIN and ENTIRELY WITHIN with the same result (either no matches, or at best 5). When I zoom right in to an apparently coincident Address and Issue pair, there is a slight shift of about 4cm between the two points - hence no spatial coincidence. Apparently, somewhere between the geocoding and/or the projecting there has been a coordinate truncation or rounding. (I have also tried NOT projecting the issues into UTM, with no difference in the result). Any suggestions? Workarounds? Alison Munro Information & Technology Mgmt Dept. City of Vaughan 2141 Major Mackenzie Drive Vaughan ON L6A 1T1 __________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail, including any attachment(s), may be confidential and is intended solely for the attention and information of the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, please notify me immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete the original transmission from your computer, including any attachment(s). Any unauthorized distribution, disclosure or copying of this message and attachment(s) by anyone other than the recipient is strictly prohibited. --------------------------------------------------------------------- List hosting provided by Directions Magazine | www.directionsmag.com | To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message number: 16808 --------------------------------------------------------------------- List hosting provided by Directions Magazine | www.directionsmag.com | To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message number: 16811
