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)

One Standard, Four Parts

Address Data Content Address Data Classification Address Data Quality Address Data Exchange

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

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

Part Two: Data Content

2.1 Introduction 29 2.2 Address Elements 34 2.3 Address Reference Systems 103 2.4 Address Attributes 150

Part Three: Address Data Classification

3.1 Introduction 229 3.2 Address Classes 233 3.3 Abstract Address Feature Class

and Address Collection 292

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

Part Five: Address Data Exchange

5.1 Introduction 420 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

Part Six: References

6.1 Standards and Specifications Cited 458

6.2 Other Works Consulted 472

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

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

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

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.

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.