Evaluation of the positional difference between two common geocoding methods
Published: 1 May 2011
Abstract Views: 1984
PDF: 1339
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Authors
Department of Society, Human Development and Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA; Harvard Prevention Research Center on Nutrition and Physical Activity, Harvard School of
Public Health, Boston, MA, United States.
Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States.
Center for Geographic Analysis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, United States.
Development and Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA; Department of Psychology and Neuroscience and Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States.
Department of Society, Human Development and Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA; Harvard Prevention Research Center on Nutrition and Physical Activity, Harvard School of
Public Health, Boston, MA, United States.
How to Cite
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.