You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Can you think of a way we would programmatically tell the difference between this and for example your favorite, the Central Building, with valid addresses on 4 streets spanning 3 parcels?
We could potentially consider developing an address range QA process that put the points onto the parcel fabric and pointed out all of the potential issues.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Update: BC Assessment has done their review, and reported back that they have confirmed with the City of Duncan that the correct address is 588 Cedar Avenue. Pending update from AddressBC.
@mraross commented on Fri May 05 2017
588 Cedar Pl and 588 Cedar Ave occupy the same parcel.
@mraross commented on Fri May 05 2017
@mraross commented on Fri May 05 2017
In the screenshot above, 588 Cedar Pl and 588 Cedar Ave occupy the same parcel. They came from two different sources. One of them is wrong.
@cmhodgson commented on Fri May 05 2017
Can you think of a way we would programmatically tell the difference between this and for example your favorite, the Central Building, with valid addresses on 4 streets spanning 3 parcels?
@mraross commented on Fri May 05 2017
The civic numbers are identical in this case. In general, the cases are:
Same civic numbers and suffixes, different something else.
Different civic numbers and suffixes, same everything else.
Different everything.
@cmhodgson commented on Fri May 05 2017
We could potentially consider developing an address range QA process that put the points onto the parcel fabric and pointed out all of the potential issues.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: