The United States Thoroughfare, Landmark and Postal Address Data Standard Presentation to: FGDC Coordination Group By URISA International March 16, 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 2 Address Data Content  Address Elements  Address Reference Systems  Address Attributes 3 Address Data Classification  Thoroughfare Class  Landmark Class  Postal Class  General Class

Table of Contents 4 Address Data Quality  Introduction  Anomalies: Uncertainty and Addresses  Measuring Address Quality  Using the Measures in a Quality Control Program  Quality Measures 5 Address Data Exchange  Structure of a Transfer Package  The Address Standard XSD (See Part 7 for complete XSD Document)‏

Table of Contents Part 6: References Part 7 Appendices  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

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.

Schedule Acceptance by FGDC Coordination Group (3/16/2010)‏ Public Review Process (90 days, ending on or before 6/30/2010)‏ Comment Adjudication (30 to 90 days, depending on number and substance of comments, ending on or before 9/30/2010)‏ Final version and adjudicated comments report to Standard Working Group (on or before 9/30/2010)‏ Standards Working Group Approval (on or before 10/30/2010 Approval by Coordination Group (14 day review, on or before 11/15/2010)‏ Approval by Steering Committee (30 day review, electronic ballot or meeting, on or before 12/30/2010)‏ Signature by Chair, FGDC Steering Committee and publication (1/15/2011)‏

Schedule Dates are for calendar years 2010 and 2011

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.

Vote The SWG recommends that the U.S. Thoroughfare, Landmark, and Postal Address (Address) Standard be released through the FGDC standards process for 90- day public review. VOTE ACTION: By simple majority of CG Primary members, should the Address Standard be released for a 90-day public review?