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 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
Local gov’t:
For example:
Cities of Grand Rapids, MI; Phoenix, AZ; Birmingham, AL
Chester Co., PA; Baltimore Co., MD; Fulton Co., GA
MetroGIS (Minneapolis/St. Paul); TVA
States of Utah, Arizona; West Virginia
Harris County 911 (Texas); Orleans Parrish Communications District (New Orleans)
Census; USGS; FCC
Caliper; ESRI
Delta State University; Oral Roberts University; St. Louis University
OGC; OASIS

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
Recognize committee members in the audience!!!

10. Schedule
Present first draft at Street Smart and Address Savvy Conference (Austin, August 15, 2005) - Complete
Post to URISA website for review & comment - Complete
Synthesize comments - Complete
Present revised draft at the URISA annual conference in Kansas City (October, 2005) - Complete
Second review period – Underway, ends December 31, 2005
Synthesize comments
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)
Thoroughfare addresses specify a location by reference to a thoroughfare. 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.
Landmark addresses specify a location by reference to a named landmark. A landmark is named point or area that is prominent enough in the local landscape to be publicly known.
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.

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. One Standard – Four Parts
Objectives
Objective: Create a data standard for street addresses
Content
Classification
Quality
Exchange
One Standard – Four Parts

16. Comment Summary Introduction
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 what’s 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 Complex Elements Address Attributes
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: /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
ZIP+4
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 Summary Part One: Content
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 Four Classes
Classes defined by their data elements and the order in which they are arranged
Four Classes
Thoroughfare Address
Landmark Address
Postal Address
General Address
There are many valid ways to define and classify types of addresses. The most appropriate way depends on the purpose the classification is intended to serve. FGDC standards are data processing standards; thus this classification standard is created to serve data processing needs.
The address data classification standard classifies addresses according to their syntax, that is, their data elements and the order in which the elements are arranged. Syntax determines the table structure needed to hold and exchange the address, and often it is all we know about addresses in a given file.

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: Main Street
Block Range (TIGER format):
, 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, ZIP+4
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 Summary Part Two: Classification
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 )
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 conditions: posting, 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 Summary Part Three: Quality
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) Local Dataset Destination Dataset XML Export
Import
Engine
Export
XML
Exchange
Data and
Metadata

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
<ThoroughfareAddress>
<CompleteAddressNumber AddressNumber=”125” />
<CompleteStreetName StreetPreDirectional=”East”
StreetName=”11th” StreetPostType=”Street” />
<PostalZip>78701</PostalZip>
<PostalPlaceName>Austin</PostalPlaceName>
<PostalState>TX</PostalState>
<AuthorityId> </AuthorityId>”
</ThoroughfareAddress>

51. Transactional Data (sample)
<ThoroughfareAddress action=‘add’>
<CompleteAddressNumber AddressNumber=”125” />
<CompleteStreetName StreetPreDirectional=”East”
StreetName=”11th” StreetPostType=”Street” />
<PostalZip>78701</PostalZip>
<PostalPlaceName>Austin</PostalPlaceName>
<PostalState>TX</PostalState>
<AuthorityId> </AuthorityId>”
</ThoroughfareAddress>
<ThoroughfareAddress action=‘delete’>

52. Comment Summary Part Four: Exchange
Better coordination is needed between Data Content & Data Exchange
Clarify FGDC metadata requirements

53. Next Steps Synthesize comments from first review period - Underway
Present revised draft at the URISA annual conference in Kansas City (October, 2005)- Done
Post for Comments – November 7, 2005
Second review period – Through December 31
Synthesize comments
Submit revised standard to FGDC for full public review, comment adjudication, and approval as a draft standard (early 2006)

54. View the Draft Standard
(November 7, 2006)
We invite you to:
Review the draft document
Comment in online discussion forums

55. Questions & Discussion
Contacts:
Martha Lombard, GISP
Ed Wells, GISP
Hilary Perkins, GISP
Sara Yurman
Carl Anderson