FGDC Address Standard Update: What's Next? Address Standard Working Group Martha Wells, GISP Carl Anderson, GISP Sara Yurman, GISP Ed Wells, GISP Hilary Perkins, GISP

FGDC Address Data Standard Scope, Status, and Structure – United States Street, Landmark, and Postal Address Data Standard" – Scope: Street, landmark, and postal addresses in the United States – Status: FGDC-endorsed standard – Structure: One data standard in four parts: Data Content Data Classification Data Quality Data Exchange

Purpose of the Standard Provide a systematic basis for recording all addresses in the United States Provide one standard that meets the address data management needs of: – Local address administrators – Emergency response and navigation – Postal and package delivery – Administrative recordkeeping – Address data aggregation Support best practices in address data management

Organization of the FGDC Standard Data Content Data Classification Data Quality Data Exchange Two profiles: USPS and NENA (still in draft)

Number, Subaddress and Street Name Elements Address Number Elements – Address Number Prefix – Address Number – Address Number Suffix – Complete Address Number Subaddress Elements – Subaddress Type – Subaddress ID – Subaddress – Complete Subaddress Street Name Elements – Street Name Premodifier – Street Name Predirectional – Street Name Pre-type – Separator Element – Street Name – Street Name Post-type – Street Name Postdirectional – Street Name Postmodifier – Complete Street Name

Landmark, Place Name and Postal Elements Landmark Elements – Landmark Name – Complete Landmark Name Place Names – Place Name (community, municipal, postal, county) – Place Name Type – State Name – Country Name – ZIP Code – ZIP + 4 Postal Elements – USPS Box Type – USPS Box ID – USPS Box – USPS Box Group Type – USPS Box Group ID – USPS Route – USPS Address – USPS General Delivery Point

Address Attributes Address Identifiers (UUID) Address Geometry Address Status Attributes for Quality Control Attributes that relate addresses to other features (parcels, roads, etc.) and to each other

Address Reference System Elements Provide for description of the rules used in assigning addresses and street names Useful in documenting addressing practices Essential for quality control – If you don’t know the rules, you can’t determine what is right and what is wrong. Example: if you have an even number in an address, how do you know whether it’s on the correct side of the street. The Address Reference System will identify which side should be even numbers, and a quality control test can be run to see whether the even number in an address is on the side which should have even numbers

NENA NG9-1-1 CLDXF Standard Civic Location Data Exchange Format – Developed by the NENA Next Generation Data Development Working Group

What Is CLDXF? Standardized way to exchange call civic location (address) information – Created by NENA NGDD WG as part of Next Generation suite of standards – Status: Not yet adopted. Public review complete. Comments under adjudication. Profile of IETF Geo-priv PIDF-LO Related by profile to the new FGDC address data standard – A profile restricts or extends a base standard (without contradicting it) for a particular application.

CLDXF Contents Elements needed to compose addresses in call records: – Country, state, and place names and codes – Street name elements – Address number elements – Landmark name – Subaddress elements

What CLDXF Excludes Addresses that are unacceptable in call records: – Intersection addresses – Address ranges – PO Boxes, Rural Routes and similar postal addresses Information not needed in the address portion of a call record: – Address IDs and attributes – Address classes – Address quality tests

Key CLDXF-FGDC Differences Reasons for differences – CLDXF is about call records, not address records Addresses are a vital element of call records – Different purposes and use cases – CLDXF must conform to PIDF-LO framework

Creating the CLDXF – FGDC Profile Compared the business purposes of the standards – Determined which address classes and elements were needed for NENA purposes – Mapped FGDC elements and NENA elements to each other – Compared the element definitions, examples, notes, etc. in complete detail. Noted all discrepancies. Reviewed FGDC address classes and determined which were useful in CLDXF. – Within the profile, restricted or extended the FGDC standard as needed to accommodate discrepancies and exclusions. Listed the steps needed to convert between NENA and FGDC address records.

What's in the Profile? Detailed, element by element comparison of FGDC and NENA elements – Which NENA element corresponds to which FGDC elements Discrepancies, comparisons, reconciliation Other restrictions and extensions: parts, classes, domains of values Step-by-step task list for converting address records between NENA and FGDC standards. Conformance requirements

Result Address data exchange will be included in the NG9-1-1 suite of standards CLDXF will be a NENA standard and statement of best practice for voluntary adoption by PSAPs nationwide. CLDXF conforms to the IETF PIDF-LO but makes it US-specific. CLDXF and FGDC standards are tightly related. Address data managers can exchange data across the standards. The three standards reinforce each other.

Implementation: CAP Grants and Beyond Implementation: CAP Grants and Beyond Moving Forward

Federal, State and Local Adoption and Use Census and other federal agencies are using the Standard Several states, counties and cities have adopted the standard, and are implementing data models that use it ASWG is planning to work with NIEM to develop a profile for their use Planning to propose Addresses as the eighth data theme in the NSDI Framework

Benefits of the Standard Provides a comprehensive syntactical (grammatical) approach to address data across the United States Incorporates Quality Control (no other standard does this) Provides for standardized exchange of information

CAP Grants Support Implementation Two CAP Grants from FGDC for Address Standard Implementation – One provides for development of tools Creation of a hyperlinked, web implementation of the standard so that the standard is more accessible and comprehensible to users Creation of tools for preparing data for import and export – One provides for the development of training materials to assist local governments in implementing the standard

Quality Control for Address Data Using fishbones to verify addresses—standard provides the tools so that the quality of address data can be tracked.

Data Exchange Standard contains a full.XSD (XML definition document) for address data, attributes, and quality measures. XML also provides a structure for address data (a data model, but not a database model) Links to tools being developed to prepare data for import and export

Questions and Discussion

For Further Information Contact: Martha McCart Wells, GISP – Spatial Focus, Inc. – – The Standard may be downloaded from URISA – – PDF files available at this time. – The.XSD diagrams are also hyperlinked to this site