Overview of Draft Street Address Standard - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Overview of Draft Street Address Standard PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 66e57c-YjQ3Y



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Overview of Draft Street Address Standard

Description:

Overview of Draft Street Address Standard Address Data Standards Working Group Co-Chairs: Martha Lombard Ed Wells Hilary Perkins Spatial Focus, Inc. DC OCTO Jacobs ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:39
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Date added: 7 April 2020
Slides: 56
Provided by: fgdcGovpa5
Learn more at: http://www.fgdc.gov
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Overview of Draft Street Address Standard


1
Overview of Draft Street Address Standard
Address Data Standards Working Group
  • Co-Chairs
  • Martha Lombard Ed Wells Hilary Perkins
  • Spatial Focus, Inc. DC OCTO Jacobs Civil, Inc.

Sara Yurman Carl Anderson Spatial 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 - Complete
  4. Present revised draft at the URISA annual
    conference in Kansas City (October, 2005) -
    Complete
  5. 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 addresses
  • General 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
  • Content
  • Classification
  • Quality
  • Exchange
  • 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 whats expected of them
  • Clarify geographic extent of the standard
  • Include an acronym list and a statement of best
    practices

17
Part 1 Content
  • Simple Elements
  • Address Number
  • Street Name
  • Building, Floor, Unit
  • Intersection
  • Landmark Name
  • Larger-Area
  • Postal 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 Element
  • Fifth Street and Main Street (intersection)
  • 100 199 Main Street (range)
  • Landmark Name
  • Statue of Liberty
  • Galleria Mall
  • Winona Park Elementary School

22
Larger-Area Elements
  • Community (Urbanization) Place Name
  • Municipality Place Name
  • USPS Place Name
  • County
  • State
  • ZIP Code
  • ZIP4
  • 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 Elements
  • Parity
  • Address Scheme Origin
  • Address Scheme Axes
  • Street Sequence
  • Street 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 Classes
  • Thoroughfare Address
  • Landmark Address
  • Postal Address
  • General 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, ZIP4
  • 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 source
  • Date and conditions of assignment
  • Current status lifecycle and official
  • Agreement with local address schema
  • Ground conditionsposting, street signs, etc.
  • Coordinate location
  • Local schema and domains of values

40
Testing Address Quality
  • Tests grouped by Content and Classification
  • Simple Elements
  • Complex Elements
  • Attributes
  • Address Classes
  • Tests described by
  • Measure Name
  • Measure Description
  • Report
  • Evaluation Procedure
  • Pseudocode 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
  • Monolithic or Complete
  • Transactional or Incremental
  • The address data exchange standard supports both
    types using slightly different structures.
  • Required Elements
  • Address Data
  • Metadata

46
Exchange (continued)
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
Preparing Data (sample)
  • 125 E 11th St Austin TX 78701
  • reparse local data into normal form
  • 125 East 11th Street Austin TX 78701
  • express data in XML
  • ltThoroughfareAddressgt
  • ltCompleteAddressNumber AddressNumber125 /gt
  • ltCompleteStreetName StreetPreDirectionalEast
  • StreetName11th StreetPostTypeStreet /gt
  • ltPostalZipgt78701lt/PostalZipgt
  • ltPostalPlaceNamegtAustinlt/PostalPlaceNamegt
  • ltPostalStategtTXlt/PostalStategt
  • ltAuthorityIdgt4845305000lt/AuthorityIdgt
  • lt/ThoroughfareAddressgt

51
Transactional Data (sample)
  • ltThoroughfareAddress actionaddgt
  • ltCompleteAddressNumber AddressNumber125 /gt
  • ltCompleteStreetName StreetPreDirectionalEast
  • StreetName11th StreetPostTypeStreet /gt
  • ltPostalZipgt78701lt/PostalZipgt
  • ltPostalPlaceNamegtAustinlt/PostalPlaceNamegt
  • ltPostalStategtTXlt/PostalStategt
  • ltAuthorityIdgt4845305000lt/AuthorityIdgt
  • lt/ThoroughfareAddressgt
  • ltThoroughfareAddress actiondeletegt
  • ltCompleteAddressNumber AddressNumber125 /gt
  • ltCompleteStreetName StreetPreDirectionalEast
  • StreetName11th StreetPostTypeStreet /gt
  • ltPostalZipgt78701lt/PostalZipgt
  • ltPostalPlaceNamegtAustinlt/PostalPlaceNamegt
  • ltPostalStategtTXlt/PostalStategt
  • ltAuthorityIdgt4845305000lt/AuthorityIdgt
  • lt/ThoroughfareAddressgt

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, 2005
  4. Second review period Through December 31
  5. Synthesize comments
  6. 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
(No Transcript)
About PowerShow.com