Draft Address Data Standard - Introductory Materials
Introductory Materials
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. Because they 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, 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. In sponsoring the creation of the Street Address Data Standard, the FGDC has sought to convene, under the auspices of its Subcommittee on Cultural and Demographic Data, interested parties from among the local, state, federal, and non-government sectors to create a forum wherein these issues can be resolved, thereby helping to make our spatial data infrastructure truly national.
Introductory Materials (PDF)
- Standard_Part_Section:
- Benefits of an Address Data Standard
- Type:
- Editorial
- Name:
- Janet Lowe
- Organization:
- Buncombe County NC
- Organization_Comment:
- Email:
- janet.lowe@buncombecounty.org
- Date:
- 27 Dec 2005
Comments
Third bullet: "Address data produced by one organization will conform to the dame data standards as those developed by another organization."
Proposed_Changes
This is not true. Perhaps it should be restated: "Address data exported by one organization will conform to exchange data as other organizations." As you state in the later part of this introduction, internal processes of an organization may not allow complete conformance to this standard internally. What's important is that it conforms in the exchange between organizations with enough consistency to build applications upon it.
- Standard_Part_Section:
- Objective
- Type:
- Substantive
- Name:
- Brett Brunk
- Organization:
- FAA ATO AIM
- Organization_Comment:
- I am commenting on behalf of my organization.
- Email:
- brett.brunk@faa.gov
- Date:
- 09 Jan 2006
Comments
The document seems to be more of an address classification and semantic content description rather than a standard. The word standard implies a harmonization to make data more easily understood and transmitted. This document makes no attempt to harmonize data content; instead it seems to make every effort to classify every strange addressing style used in the United States.
Why is scope limited to national, this will make it difficult to adopt this standard in data standards that are meant to be international.
Proposed_Changes
Change title to "United States Address Data Classification" Instigate a group to begin analyzing the address data content into a robust and harmonized data standard.
- Standard_Part_Section:
- Introduction
- Type:
- Substantive
- Name:
- Anne O'Connor
- Organization:
- U.S. Census Bureau
- Organization_Comment:
- I am commenting on behalf of my organization.
- Email:
- anne.v.o.connor@census.gov
- Date:
- 10 Jan 2006
Comments
Note: This comment deals with an issue throughout the entire standard. I did not know where to put the comment. It refers to several sections. After reviewing this document, I noticed that there is no mention of tribal government inclusion or input. Several times it refers to federal, state, regional, local, etc, but tribal is never included. I think it is important for them to work with some tribes/organizations as they move forward. On page 4 there is mention of a working group and again there is no mention of tribal representation. On page 8 they talk about addressing authority and use examples such as federal agencies, Forest Service or BLM, but again no mention of tribal lands or BIA. Many reservations have roads and thoroughfares maintained by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Also it would be good to note that many tribes are reverting street and road names back to tribal language appropriate names. Some might be direct translations such as Red Corn Road, but then again the tribal name such Ha-pah-shu-tse Road could be used, which is not in keeping with all roads being in English. I would encourage that the FGDC committee work with several tribes and/or groups and not just Navajo, although I think Navajo is appropriate to include. For example, I know that Couer d'Alene is doing a lot of renaming of roads - they might provide some good insight.
Proposed_Changes
- Standard_Part_Section:
- Scope
- Type:
- Substantive
- Name:
- Steve Grise
- Organization:
- ESRI
- Organization_Comment:
- Email:
- sgrise@esri.com
- Date:
- 13 Jan 2006
Comments
I think there is a lack of clarity on the purpose and scope of the standard. The executive summary section indicates that there are thousands of implementations of addressing systems in many formats that support different purposes, and “…government agencies struggle with these issues as they seek to integrate large, mission-critical files into master address repositories.” It doesn’t sound like the intent is to help these thousands of organizations move towards consistent implementations and data management strategies – which appears to be considered too difficult a problem to solve – so the real intent here is to provide for better exchanges of address information to organizations that are building master address repositories. I suspect that there may be a “so what?” reaction from organizations unless the purpose of this standard is more clearly defined and communicated.
Proposed_Changes
I suggest you need more clarity on the purpose of this standard. What is the problem that is being solved here, for who, and how do you make this standard relevant for your target audience?
- Standard_Part_Section:
- Scope
- Type:
- Editorial
- Name:
- Steve Grise
- Organization:
- ESRI
- Organization_Comment:
- Email:
- sgrise@esri.com
- Date:
- 13 Jan 2006
Comments
In the scope section, the 3rd paragraph starts with, “This definition excludes addressees, occupants, persons, or businesses.” I think you mean something like, “This definition excludes the relationships between addresses and occupants, persons, or businesses”.
Proposed_Changes
This definition excludes the relationships between addresses and occupants, persons, or businesses
- Standard_Part_Section:
- Scope
- Type:
- Substantive
- Name:
- Steve Grise
- Organization:
- ESRI
- Organization_Comment:
- Email:
- sgrise@esri.com
- Date:
- 13 Jan 2006
Comments
Why could a standard not include generic XML, Government Agency and Commercial format options for data exchanges? To use a different example, does the Federal government feel a need to provide a compelling, widely used alternative to Adobe .pdf files on all web sites and document exchanges? Why not let industry and government provide the physical formats to the general content specifications outlined in standards? What is the level of investment required by potential users of this standard, and how can industry help to reduce cost and improve information sharing? Without this context it is hard for people to make decisions about whether to use this standard.
Proposed_Changes
Mixing content standards and exchange formats in the same standard reduces opportunity for innovation by government and private sector organizations. Content standards are more important.
- Standard_Part_Section:
- Scope
- Type:
- Substantive
- Name:
- Steve Grise
- Organization:
- ESRI
- Organization_Comment:
- Email:
- sgrise@esri.com
- Date:
- 13 Jan 2006
Comments
The scope section indicates that coordinate values are not part of the standard, but there is a section on coordinate values. Most information exchanges for Thoroughfares are in the form of GIS-based street centerline files and other geographic features such as Landmarks are shared as point features.
Proposed_Changes
It would be useful to include complete mechanisms to exchange geometry as part of the standard, including adding more types of geographic features that typically contain address information.
- Standard_Part_Section:
- Standards Development Procedure
- Type:
- Substantive
- Name:
- Steve Grise
- Organization:
- ESRI
- Organization_Comment:
- Email:
- sgrise@esri.com
- Date:
- 13 Jan 2006
Comments
It is probably a bad idea to try to finish the standard first and then begin to think about how to implement it. Too many Geo-standards efforts are working on standards first and implementation later. This results in standards that are less relevant and useful than they could be.
Proposed_Changes
I suggest that to develop a useful, relevant standard you need to work on real implementations and real exchanges of information prior to completing the standards process. I don’t mean just an interoperability experiment here, but real systems where data producers at the local and state level are feeding some master address repositories with bulk datasets and incremental updates.
- Standard_Part_Section:
- Introduction
- Type:
- Editorial
- Name:
- Patricia Brown
- Organization:
- Harris Corporation
- Organization_Comment:
- I am commenting on behalf of my organization.
- Email:
- pbrown01@harris.com
- Date:
- 17 Jan 2006
Comments
This is a general comment about the entire second draft. This document is much improved from the first. It is more complete. Formatting is more consistent, making the document easier to follow. Explanations are clearer. Additional sections, such as the acronym list, are helpful. Also the Open Discussion sections are helpful, clearly identifying points that have been debated and the arguments on either side. The quality section deserves much more attention than we’ve been able to give it. It undoubtedly illustrates many of the rules that are difficult to explain in the text.
Proposed_Changes
- Standard_Part_Section:
- Scope
- Type:
- Substantive
- Name:
- Patricia Brown
- Organization:
- Harris Corporation
- Organization_Comment:
- I am commenting on behalf of my organization.
- Email:
- pbrown01@harris.com
- Date:
- 17 Jan 2006
Comments
Under Scope, the draft says ‘This standard covers street addresses.’ It goes on to say ‘A street address specifies a location by reference to a thoroughfare, or a landmark; or it specifies a point of postal delivery.’ Understanding that there is a lot of overlap between street addresses as locations and points of postal delivery, it is still hard to understand how a post office box or ‘General Delivery’ fit in or why they were included.
Proposed_Changes
Perhaps the committee could add an explanation under Scope.
- Standard_Part_Section:
- Introduction
- Type:
- Editorial
- Name:
- Patricia Brown
- Organization:
- Harris Corporation
- Organization_Comment:
- I am commenting on behalf of my organization.
- Email:
- pbrown01
- Date:
- 17 Jan 2006
Comments
The plural of an acronym should not usually include an apostrophe. On page 8 of the introduction there are several cases where they have been.
Proposed_Changes
Remove apostrophe from plural acronyms.