1

Overview of Draft Street Address Standard

Co-Chairs:Martha Lombard Ed Wells Hilary Perkins

Spatial Focus, Inc. DC OCTO Jacobs Civil, Inc.

Address Data Standards Working Group

Sara Yurman Carl AndersonSpatial Focus, Inc. Fulton County, GA

2

Sponsoring Organizations

URISA – Submitting organization

NENA – Supporting organization

U.S. Census Bureau – Support, on-going maintenance

3

Urban & Regional Information Systems Association

URISA is a non-profit educational and professional association

Mission: “To promote the effective and ethical use of spatial information and information technologies for the understanding and management of urban and regional systems.”

7,000 national and chapter members in the US and Canada

Members from government, private, and academic sectors

Slightly more than half are state and local government employees

4

National Emergency Number Association

NENA is a professional association of 7,000 members and 46 chapters dedicated to providing effective and accessible 9-1-1 service for North America

NENA fosters the technological advancement, availability, and implementation of a universal emergency telephone number

NENA promotes research, planning, training, and education NENA's objectives include the protection of human life, the

preservation of property, and the maintenance of general community security

5

Other Organizations Represented

Local, regional, and state government 911/Emergency management

associations Federal agencies GIS software vendors and consultants Universities Other standards organizations

6

FGDC Proposal

In April 2005, the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) accepted a proposal from URISA to create a street address data standard

The standard is being prepared under the auspices of the FGDC Subcommittee on Cultural and Demographic Data

If the standard is adopted, Census Bureau will be maintenance authority

7

Work Plan

Convene core committees Work primarily by collaborative website Teleconferences monthly Meet two times:

August: Street Smart Conference• Austin, TX

October: URISA Annual Conference• Kansas City, MO

8

Core Committee Structure

Policy and Coordination Content and Classification Data Quality Exchange

9

Participant Roles

Participants (Core Committees): writers/editors/provocateurs for draft sections and responding to comments

Reviewers: review and work with the committee to create the drafts

Observers: review drafts and provide comments or recommendations on behalf of themselves and/or their organization

10

Schedule

1. Present first draft at Street Smart and Address Savvy Conference (Austin, August 15, 2005) - Complete

2. Post to URISA website for review & comment - Complete

3. Synthesize comments - Complete4. Present revised draft at the URISA annual conference in

Kansas City (October, 2005) - Complete5. Second review period – Underway, ends December 31,

2005 6. Synthesize comments 7. Submit revised standard to FGDC for full public review,

comment adjudication, and approval as a draft standard (early 2006)

11

Introduction to the Draft Standard

Provides background information. Defines address. Describes the goals and objectives. Lays out the standards development

process. Identifies the maintenance authority.

12

Street Address Definition

A street address specifies a location by reference to a thoroughfare, or a landmark; or it specifies a point of postal delivery

Four basic classes of street address: Thoroughfare addresses Landmark addresses Postal addressesGeneral addresses (can be any of these

three)

13

Why A Street Address Standard?

Street addresses are the location identifiers most widely-used by state and local government and the public.

Street addresses are critical information for administrative, emergency response, research, marketing, mapping, GIS, routing and navigation, and many other purposes.

Street addresses have evolved over many decades, under the control of thousands of local jurisdictions, in many different record and database formats, and to serve many purposes.

The variety of different address formats and types pose a number of complex geoprocessing and modeling issues.

As a consequence, government agencies struggle with these issues as they seek to integrate large, mission-critical files into master address repositories.

14

Goals

Create a street address content and classification standard that provides the foundation for data exchange and data quality standards• Define tests of street address data quality

• Provide a statement of best practices for street address data content and classification

• Offer a migration path from legacy formats to standards- compliant ones

• Different users may require different levels of standardization

• Build on previous FGDC address standard efforts

15

Objectives

Objective: Create a data standard for street addresses ContentClassificationQualityExchange

One Standard – Four Parts

16

Comment SummaryIntroduction

21 comments Most related to the overall scope and goals of

the standard: Clarify objectives / explain the benefits Lean toward rigidity in conformance Tell custodians of data what’s expected of them Clarify geographic extent of the standard Include an acronym list and a statement of best

practices

17

Part 1: Content

Simple ElementsAddress Number Street NameBuilding, Floor, & UnitIntersectionLandmark NameLarger-AreaPostal Address

Complex Elements Address Attributes

18

Address Number Elements

Prefix: B317 Main Street Number: 123 Main Street Suffix: 123 1/2 Main Street

19

Street Name Elements

Pre-modifier: Old North B Street Pre-directional: North Main Street Pre-type: Avenue A Name: Main Street Post-type: Main Street Post-directional: Main Street North Post-modifier: B Street Extended

20

Building, Floor, Unit

Building Type Building ID Floor Type Floor ID Unit Type Unit ID

Building 12, Mezzanine Level, Suite 200

21

Separator and Landmark Elements

Separator ElementFifth Street and Main Street

(intersection)100 – 199 Main Street (range)

Landmark NameStatue of LibertyGalleria MallWinona Park Elementary School

22

Larger-Area Elements

Community (Urbanization) Place Name Municipality Place Name USPS Place Name County

State ZIP Code ZIP+4 Nation

23

Postal Address Elements

Postal Box Type, Postal Box ID Postal Group Type, Postal Group ID USPS General Delivery Point

PO Box 6943 RR 1, Box 27 CMR 4, Box 2 (overseas military) General Delivery

24

Complex Elements

Complete Address Number Complete Street Name Building, Floor, Unit Complete Occupancy Identifier Address Range Complete Feature Address Place Name Place State Zip

25

Address Attributes

Address ID Descriptive Attributes

Address Class Address Feature Type Lifecycle Status Address Status (official, alias) Address Range Type Location Description

26

Address Attributes (continued) Location Attributes

Address X Coordinate Address Y Coordinate US National Grid Coordinate Address Z Value Latitude Longitude

Address Lineage Attributes Starting Date for Address Status Ending Date for Address Status Address Direct Source Address Authority FIPS Identifiers for Addressing Authority

27

Address Attributes (continued)

Address Quality ElementsParityAddress Scheme OriginAddress Scheme AxesStreet SequenceStreet Name Group

28

Comment SummaryPart One: Content

97 comments Additional content elements

Lat-long, z-value, parity, land use Abbreviations

Extensive discussion, trade-off on quality More information on implementation

Will create an Implementation Guide Clarifications and Definitions

Glossary Spanish Syntax

Consistent use of Spanish elements

29

Part 2: Classification

Classes Defined by Syntax Classes defined by their data elements and the order in

which they are arranged

Four ClassesThoroughfare AddressLandmark AddressPostal AddressGeneral Address

30

Thoroughfare Classes

A thoroughfare in this context is a linear feature used to travel from or to a specific location. A thoroughfare is typically but not always a road — it may be, for example, a walkway, a railroad, or a river.

Site: 1230A North Main Street Extended Landmark-Site: City Hall, 410 Main Street Intersection: Seventh Street and D Street Address Range: 110-126 Main Street Block Range (TIGER format):

100-130, 101-135 Main Street

31

Landmark Classes

A landmark is a named point or area that is prominent enough in the local landscape as to be publicly known.

Single Site: Howard University Multi-site: Truth Hall, Howard University Community: 123 Urbanization Los Olmos

32

Postal Classes

Postal addresses specify points of postal delivery which have no definite relation to the location of the recipient, such as post office boxes, rural route boxes, etc.

USPS Postal Delivery Box: PO Box 6943 USPS Postal Delivery Route: RR 1, Box

100 USPS General Delivery Address:

General Delivery, Elko NV

33

General Class

Holds addresses of any class: Complete Feature Address,

Place, State, ZIP, ZIP+4 For general mailing and contact lists Supports specialized profiles such as USPS

Publication 28 standard A starting point for parsing and classification

34

Debated Issues

Abbreviate, or spell out completely? Use the name as given by the local authority Spell everything out in the base record Use views and interfaces to abbreviate

What is the place name? Community, Municipality, USPS, County Record all; recommend rules for picking one

Are TIGER-style block ranges an address class?

How to handle leading zeros in Address Number?

35

Comment SummaryPart Two: Classification

21 comments Clarification and Definition

Glossary More information on implementation

Will create an Implementation Guide

36

Part 3: Quality

Goal: Help implement quality control for addresses, not redefine principles of spatial quality

Existing Standards and Documents Describing Spatial Data Quality Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata Topic 11: OpenGIS Metadata

(ISO/TC 211 DIS 19115) Supporting ISO Geographic Information standards

• 19113: Quality principles• 19114: Quality evaluation procedures

Spatial Data Transfer Standard (SDTS)

37

Elements of Quality Elements appearing in both Content Standard for

Digital Geospatial Metadata (CSDGM) and OGC Topic 11 (ISO 19115) Dataset Identity

• What is this stuff? Attribute (Thematic) Accuracy

• What do we know about it, and with what degree of certainty?

Logical Consistency • If (A = B), do A and B both exist?

• If the Official Status of an address is Active, is there a number assigned?

Completeness • Are all the addressable objects within the schema or

jurisdiction addressed? If not, do we know why?

38

Elements of Quality (continued)

Elements appearing in both Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata (CSDGM) and OGC Topic 11 (ISO 19115) Positional Accuracy

• Do we know where it is?• Does where we think we know it is

align with anything else? Lineage

• How did it happen? Who did this? Temporal Accuracy

• Independent OGC/ISO Element, Dependent CSDGM Element

• How long has it been like that? • Are we sure?

39

What's Different about Addresses?

Uncertainty and Addresses Address sourceDate and conditions of assignmentCurrent status: lifecycle and officialAgreement with local address schemaGround conditions:

posting, street signs, etc.Coordinate location

Local schema and domains of values

40

Testing Address Quality Tests grouped by Content and Classification:

Simple ElementsComplex ElementsAttributesAddress Classes

Tests described by:Measure NameMeasure DescriptionReportEvaluation ProcedurePseudocode Example (Pseudo SQL)

41

Why SQL?

Platform-neutral, portable logic Standard spatial predicates described

in the OpenGIS Simple Features Specification for SQL (SFSQL)

Has enough logic to describe one implementation of the Evaluation Procedure

Generalized, but close enough for spatial database users to adapt quickly

42

Test Example

43

Test Example

44

Comment SummaryPart Three: Quality

5 comments This section was provided in outline

form only for the first review period. As such the comments focused on what should be included when the section was complete.

45

Part 4: Exchange

Two basic forms: o Monolithic or Complete o Transactional or Incremental

The address data exchange standard supports both types using slightly different structures.

Required Elements:o Address Data o Metadata

46

Exchange (continued)

Destination Dataset

Local Dataset

ImportEngine

ExportEngine

XMLExchange Data andMetadata

XMLExchange Data andMetadata

47

Reasons for XML

Business reasons for using XML as the exchange data language

FGDC standards require its use XML protects content producers and content

consumers from changing data Field order is unimportant Missing fields don't prevent exchanges Extra fields don't prevent exchanges

XML is extensible

48

Sample Detail of Current Address Model

49

Preparing to Exchange Data

Undo localizations of data (normalize the data)

Reparse data into one of the four Address Classes

Express data in the XML format of the Standard

Prepare metadata describing the data being exchanged

50

125 | E 11th | St | Austin | TX | 78701reparse local data into normal form

125 | East | 11th | Street | Austin | TX | 78701express data in XML<ThoroughfareAddress>

<CompleteAddressNumber AddressNumber=”125” /><CompleteStreetName StreetPreDirectional=”East”StreetName=”11th” StreetPostType=”Street” /><PostalZip>78701</PostalZip><PostalPlaceName>Austin</PostalPlaceName><PostalState>TX</PostalState><AuthorityId>4845305000</AuthorityId>”

</ThoroughfareAddress>

Preparing Data (sample)

51

<ThoroughfareAddress action=‘add’><CompleteAddressNumber AddressNumber=”125” /><CompleteStreetName StreetPreDirectional=”East”StreetName=”11th” StreetPostType=”Street” /><PostalZip>78701</PostalZip><PostalPlaceName>Austin</PostalPlaceName><PostalState>TX</PostalState><AuthorityId>4845305000</AuthorityId>”

</ThoroughfareAddress>

<ThoroughfareAddress action=‘delete’><CompleteAddressNumber AddressNumber=”125” /><CompleteStreetName StreetPreDirectional=”East”StreetName=”11th” StreetPostType=”Street” /><PostalZip>78701</PostalZip><PostalPlaceName>Austin</PostalPlaceName><PostalState>TX</PostalState><AuthorityId>4845305000</AuthorityId>”

</ThoroughfareAddress>

Transactional Data (sample)

52

Comment SummaryPart Four: Exchange

3 comments Better coordination is needed between

Data Content & Data Exchange Clarify FGDC metadata requirements

53

Next Steps

1. Synthesize comments from first review period - Underway

2. Present revised draft at the URISA annual conference in Kansas City (October, 2005)- Done

3. Post for Comments – November 7, 20054. Second review period – Through December 315. Synthesize comments6. Submit revised standard to FGDC for full public

review, comment adjudication, and approval as a draft standard (early 2006)

54

View the Draft Standard

www.urisa.org(November 7, 2006)

We invite you to: Review the draft document Comment in online discussion forums

55

Questions & Discussion

Contacts:

Martha Lombard, GISPEd Wells, GISPHilary Perkins, GISPSara YurmanCarl Anderson

info@urisa.org