1. 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)‏

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

3. Background Built on previous drafts URISA petitioned FGDC for the opportunity to develop this standard. Granted in 2005. URISA Address Standard Working Group prepared this standard with the help of address creators and managers throughout the United States  Volunteer, community-based process

4. 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

5. Part Two: Data Content 2.1 Introduction 29 2.2 Address Elements 34 2.3 Address Reference Systems 103 2.4 Address Attributes 150

6. Part Three: Address Data Classification 3.1 Introduction 229 3.2 Address Classes 233 3.3 Abstract Address Feature Class and Address Collection 292

7. Part Four: Address Data Quality 4.1 Introduction 293 4.2 Anomalies: Uncertainty and Addresses 296 4.3 Measuring Address Quality 297 4.4 Applying Measures to Domains of Values 299 4.5 How to use the Measures in a Quality Control Program 301 4.6 About Nodes for Quality Control 305 4.7 Quality Measures 308

8. Part Five: Address Data Exchange 5.1 Introduction420 5.2 Structure of a Transfer Package.422 5.3 The Address Standard XSD Data Model (see Part 7.1: Appendix A for the complete XSD document) 426

9. Part Six: References 6.1 Standards and Specifications Cited 458 6.2 Other Works Consulted472

10. Part Seven: Appendices 7.1 Appendix A (Normative): Normative XSD 475 7.2 Appendix B (Informative):Address XML Examples 545 7.3 Appendix C (Informative): Table of Element Relationships 554 7.4 Appendix D (Informative): Relationship of Addresses to Transportation Features and Linear Reference Locations 556 7.5 Appendix E (Informative): Element Measure Index 565 7.6 Appendix F (Informative): Attribute Measure Index 569 7.7 Appendix G (Informative): Classification Measure Index 572 7.8 Appendix H (Informative): Quality Measures By Data Quality Report 574 7.9 Appendix I (Informative): Compatibility of the Address Standard with the FGDC Geographic Information Framework Data Content Standard for the NDSI 578

11. 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, emails and conversations with practitioners

12. 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

13. 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.

14. 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.