The United States Thoroughfare, Landmark and Postal Address Data Standard Submitted for Review to: FGDC Standards Working Group By URISA International February, 2010 Presented by URISA Address Standard Working Group (Martha McCart Wells, Ed Wells, Carl Anderson, Sara Yurman, Hilary Perkins)‏

One Standard, Four Parts Address Data Content Address Data Classification Address Data Quality Address Data Exchange

Background Built on previous drafts URISA petitioned FGDC for the opportunity to develop this standard. Granted in URISA Address Standard Working Group prepared this standard with the help of address creators and managers throughout the United States  Volunteer, community-based process

Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1  1.1 The Need for a Comprehensive Address Data Standard 1  1.2 Objective 3  1.3 Benefits 5  1.4 Scope 6  1.5 Applicability 18  1.6 Related Standards 18  1.7 Standards development procedures 21  1.8 Maintenance authority 25  1.9 Acronyms Used in the Standard 25  1.10 Trademark Acknowledgements 28

Part Two: Data Content 2.1 Introduction Address Elements Address Reference Systems Address Attributes 150

Part Three: Address Data Classification 3.1 Introduction Address Classes Abstract Address Feature Class and Address Collection 292

Part Four: Address Data Quality 4.1 Introduction Anomalies: Uncertainty and Addresses Measuring Address Quality Applying Measures to Domains of Values How to use the Measures in a Quality Control Program About Nodes for Quality Control Quality Measures 308

Part Five: Address Data Exchange 5.1 Introduction Structure of a Transfer Package The Address Standard XSD Data Model (see Part 7.1: Appendix A for the complete XSD document) 426

Part Six: References 6.1 Standards and Specifications Cited Other Works Consulted472

Part Seven: Appendices 7.1 Appendix A (Normative): Normative XSD Appendix B (Informative):Address XML Examples Appendix C (Informative): Table of Element Relationships Appendix D (Informative): Relationship of Addresses to Transportation Features and Linear Reference Locations Appendix E (Informative): Element Measure Index Appendix F (Informative): Attribute Measure Index Appendix G (Informative): Classification Measure Index Appendix H (Informative): Quality Measures By Data Quality Report Appendix I (Informative): Compatibility of the Address Standard with the FGDC Geographic Information Framework Data Content Standard for the NDSI 578

Standard Development Process Grass-roots approach  Two drafts circulated through URISA Web Site (over 400 comments received on these drafts)‏  Over 40 presentations of Standard in progress (URISA, NSGIC, NENA, state, regional, and national conferences, GSDI and ISO internationally)‏  Two webinars presented through URISA Use of Wiki Site  Over 500 people signed up to view and comment on site Teleconferences, s and conversations with practitioners

Coordination with Other Standards Standards Referenced  FGDC Standards Reference Model  FGDC Metadata Standard  FGDC Framework Standard (especially Base Part, Cadastral and Transportation)  ANSI - FIPS  USPS Publication 28  NENA Next Generation 911 Address Exchange  XML, GML, SQL  Approximately 25 other standards consulted Meetings with other Standards bodies  NENA, USPS, ISO, FGDC Subcommittees and Standards Maintenance Authorities

Profiles Two profiles of the standard to coordinate with specific use cases:  USPS Worked with Postal Service to coordinate USPS Publication 28 and UPU Standards  NENA Worked with NENA to update their address standard and coordinate profiles to manage emergency address uses Profiles both extend and restrict the ways in which the standard is applied to these cases.

Benefits of an Address Data Standard Addresses are the most commonly used and well-known identifier of the location of people, places and events Created, maintained and used by virtually all local governments Ability to share and manage address data is a critical need for all levels of government Known value to the geospatial community  Draft versions already in use, and adopted by some states and local governments.