NG911 GIS Information SessionJanuary 29, 2018

Presented by:County GIS Professionals Association of

PennsylvaniaPennsylvania Emergency Management Agency

Welcome!

Agenda

• Our Goals for the Day• County Pros Items• PEMA GIS Workgroup • NENA I3 Overview • Address Issues Panel

Discussion• Lunch• Authoritative Sources and

NENA GIS Data Model Highlights

• MSAG Synchronization• Break• Future PA GIS NG911 Best

Practices Overview • Need for Boundary Delineation

Procedures • Boundary Issues Panel

Discussion• Wrap up and Next Steps

Today’s Goals

• Talk about the relationship between NG911 and GIS. o From the NENA I3 document: 9-1-1 authorities will be required to have

accurate and complete GIS systems, which are used to provision the LVF and ECRF. A change to the 9-1-1Authority’s GIS system automatically propagates to the ECRF and LVF and immediately affects routing.

• Provide information about PEMA’s direction related to NG911 and GISoPEMA understands the importance and need of GIS in the success of

NG911oPEMA is looking into ways to assist with GIS Data readiness for NG911o Establish direct communication between GIS and PEMA

Today’s Goals

•Provide an examination of NENA standards for better understanding.

•Share examples of issues and offer ideas on how to address them.

•Provide a forum for open communication.•Hear what your concerns are, in order to provide solutions and future training opportunities to address them.

Today’s Speakers

• Jeffrey Boyle, PEMA• Barry Hutchins, Lycoming

County• Justin Smith, Cumberland

County• Tim Haynes, City of

Philadelphia• Tim Murphy, GISP,

Columbia County

• Patrick McKinney, Cumberland County

• Steve Kocsis, GISP, Cambria County

• Nick Barger, Centre County

• Scott Zubek, Tioga County

GIS Pros Quarterly Meeting

County GIS Pros

• Several new Board Members for the 2018/2019 cycle• 2018 membership dues invoices• Revamped web site will be ready soon

PEMA UpdateJeffrey Boyle, 911 Office Deputy Director, PEMA

PEMA GIS Workgroup

• GIS Workgroupo Representation from GIS Pros, 911 community,

Technical subcommittee, State Agencies and NENAo GIS Data Gap Analysiso GIS Data Standards and Guidelineso NG9-1-1 GIS Strategic Plan

• Ortho-imagery RFP Updates• Contact PEMA GIS: RA-EMPEMA-GIS@pa.gov

Overview of the NENA I3 StandardBarry Hutchins, Lycoming County

I3

•NENA Functional and Interface Standards for Next Generation 9-1-1 Version 1.0 (I3)

The Big Picture

1 Executive Overview • Major changes in the existing emergency services architecture are

being driven by the rapid evolution of the types of devices and services that can be used to call for help. Also there is an increasing volume and diversity of information that can be made available to assist PSAPs and responders in an emergency. NENA recognizes this is a fundamental update to the North American 9-1-1 system, and is addressing the challenge with a system design called “Next Generation 9-1-1” (NG9-1-1). NG9-1-1 is the evolution of Enhanced 9-1-1 to an all-IP-based emergency communications system. This technical specification, commonly referred to as I3, is the first version of the NG9-1-1 system design.

A bit more of The Big Picture…

2.1 Operational Impacts Summary • The I3 specification encompasses a complete redesign of the entire 9-1-1 system,

affecting all elements, protocols, processes and procedures. It will have far reaching impacts on all participants in the 9-1-1 system.

• This document reflects the long-term view that the networks that connect the PSAP to callers and to other PSAPs and responders will evolve to be IP-based.

• Location of the caller (or a reference to it) will be conveyed with the call, so that routing can be accomplished dynamically along the path of the call from the caller to the call taker, and so that location is available as soon as the call is answered.

• Location within the 9-1-1 system will be regularized, and made conformant with other users of location (for example, URISA standards). All elements will support both civic and geodetic forms of location.

The ‘War and Peace’ novel of the NG9-1-1 world

•The revision currently under review has 361 pages.

Section in the revision which is directly related to the NG9-1-1GIS Data Model

Another section which impacts the NG9-1-1 GIS Data Model

Because the I3 document is the ‘parent’ document…

• Documents such as the NENA NG9-1-1 GIS Data Model must match the I3 documentation in such areas as:oData field descriptionsoData field nameso Field type and lengths

The current I3 document

• Covers many NG9-1-1 topics, well beyond the GIS portion of NG9-1-1oSystem ArchitectureoCall FlowoService CreationoBasic Serviceso Event NotificationoSecurityoService ManagementoRoles and Responsibilities

The I3 revision covers a lot more…

While an in depth knowledge of I3 is not needed to build the GIS portion of NG9-1-1…

• The sections which specifically relate to theNENA NG9-1-1 GIS Data Model should be familiar to GIS professionals supporting NG9-1-1

Some other documents...

• Which impact the NENA NG9-1-1 GIS Data Model

CLDXF

• NG9-1-1 Civic Location Data Exchange Format• Full Name: NENA Next Generation 9-1-1 United States Civic

Location Data Exchange Format (CLDXF)• Document Type: Standard • Number: NENA-STA-004.1.1-2014• NENA Next Generation 9-1-1 United States Civic Location Data

Exchange Format Standard, NENA-STA-004, March 23, 2014 has been NENA Board approved.

CLDXF continued…

• The CLDXF document was developed to: o Provide a definitive set of core civic location data elements that support

emergency call routing and dispatch.oMap a profile between Presence Information Data Format-Location Object

(PIDF-LO) and those same NENA core civic location data elements.oMap those civic location data elements to the corresponding Federal

Geographic Data Committee, United States Thoroughfare, Landmark, and Postal Address Data Standard, Document Number FGDC-STD-016-2011 set of data elements, which was sponsored by the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA) and the National Emergency Number Association (NENA).

o Provide illustrative examples of address parsing.• The NENA NG9-1-1 CLDXF standard supports the exchange of United

States civic location address information about 9-1-1 calls, both within the US and internationally. The NENA NG9-1-1 CLDXF standard covers civic location addresses within the United States, including its outlying territories and possessions. The NENA NG9-1-1 CLDXF standard defines the detailed data elements needed for address data exchange.

Some referenced documents are outside of NENA

• United States Thoroughfare, Landmark, and Postal Address Data Standard FGDC-STD-016-2011 (7 parts)

Another outside document

• Important for creation of the NG9-1-1 GIS dataoNational Imagery and Mapping Agency Technical Report

TR8350.2; “Department of Defense World Geodetic System 1984 - Its Definition and Relationships with Local Geodetic Systems”; Third Edition, Amendment 1, 3 January 2000.

A document related to naming conventions and data domains

• The InterNational Committee for Information Technology Standards (INCITS) replaces the FIPS codes used in the past. The INCITS 31:2009 is the data domain for county names and equivalent.

An important NENA document

• Needed for the initial validation of GIS data which will be used for NG9-1-1

• The NENA Information Document for Synchronizing Geographic Information System databases with MSAG & ALI, NENA 71-501, Version 1.1, September 8, 2009

Its objective…

• This document is provided as a guide to synchronizing both the Master Street Address Guide (MSAG) and optionally the Automatic Location Information (ALI) databases to a Geographic Information System (GIS) geospatial database of road centerlines, site / structure locations, and related spatial databases. One must have a basic understanding of GIS concepts and MSAG data, or the resources available, in order to understand this document.

• The preferred method for performing the synchronization is using various database techniques. Emergency Service Zones, MSAG and Postal Community Names, and optionally the ALI data and address point data will all be used in the synchronization process. The synchronization of these databases will improve the accuracy of the GIS data, the MSAG, and optionally the ALI data, aid in meeting the requirements for Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG9-1-1) and improve the accuracy of the GIS data for Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) map display for all types of calls.

• Once the corrections are made, the GIS road centerline file can then be used to validate addressing and to generate an up-to-date MSAG file for scrubbing service provider addresses.

The NENA NG9-1-1 GIS Data Model document• Will contain a section with

recommended reading1 Recommended Reading and References

1) NENA Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG9-1-1) United States Civic Location Data Exchange Format (CLDXF) Standard, NENA-STA-004.1-2014.

2) NENA Detailed Functional and Interface Standards for the NENA i3 Solution, Appendix B, NENA-STA-010.2-201X (originally 08-003).

3) National Imagery and Mapping Agency Technical Report TR8350.2; “Department of Defense World Geodetic System 1984 - Its Definition and Relationships with Local Geodetic Systems”; Third Edition, Amendment 1, 3 January 2000.

4) The InterNational Committee for Information Technology Standards (INCITS) replaces

the FIPS codes used in the past. The INCITS 31:2009 is the data domain for county names and equivalent.

5) The NENA GIS Data Collection and Maintenance Standards NENA 02-014, Issue 1, July

17, 2007, provides the NENA recommended standard for GIS data collection and GIS data maintenance.

6) The NENA Information Document for Synchronizing Geographic Information System

databases with MSAG & ALI, NENA 71-501, Version 1.1, September 8, 2009, available at the NENA website www.nena.org is a guide to synchronizing both the Master Street Address Guide (MSAG) and optionally the Automatic Location Information (ALI) databases to a Geographic Information System (GIS) geospatial database of road centerlines, site / structure locations, and related spatial databases. The synchronization of these databases will improve the accuracy of the GIS data, the MSAG, and optionally the ALI data, aid in meeting the requirements for Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG9-1-1) and improve the accuracy of the GIS data for Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) map display for all types of calls. Once the corrections are made, the GIS road centerline file can then be used to validate addressing and to generate an up-to-date MSAG file for scrubbing service provider addresses.

7) The NENA Standard Data Formats for 9-1-1 Data Exchange & GIS Mapping, NENA-02-

010, Version 9, December 16, 2010 contains version 2.0 of the GIS Data Model for E9-1-1, in Exhibit 22 of this document.

8) The NENA Wireless Call Routing & Testing Validation Standards 57-002, and Appendix A

– The Wireless Call Routing and Testing Validation Worksheet describe how GIS data can be used to determine the call routing of Phase 1 wireless calls, validate the wireless calls, locational accuracy and routing, and how GIS data in the PSAP is used as an aid for locating callers and dispatching emergency responders.

9) The Public Safety Answering Points Managers’ Guide to Geographic Information

Technology, a National Emergency Number Association White Paper dated October 2002 provides an introduction to GIS technology and wireless technology and information on how to best deal with wireless information coming into the Public Safety Answering Point

The I3 document currently being revised will have a great deal more recommended readings (190 total)• 14 Recommended Reading and References 7605

o Note that this version of the document contains many references to documents that are works in 7606 progress at the IETF and other organizations. As such this document may be revised as these 7607 references stabilize. 7608

o 1. I3 Technical Requirements Document, National Emergency Number Association, NENA 08-7609 751 7610o .NENA Detailed Functional and Interfaceo Standards for the NENA I3 Solutiono NENA-STA-010.2-201X, Month, Day,o Yearo [MM/DD/YYYY] Page 292 of 361o 2. NENA Master Glossary of 9-1-1 Terminology, National Emergency Number Association, 7611 NENA 00-001 7612o 3. Interim VoIP Architecture for Enhanced 9-1-1 Services (i2), National Emergency Number 7613 Association, NENA 08-001 7614o 4. Framework for Emergency Calling in Internet Multimedia, B. Rosen, J. Polk, H. Schulzrinne, 7615 A. Newton, Internet Engineering Task Force,

RFC 6443 7616o 5. Geopriv Requirements, J.Cueller et. al, Internet Engineering Task Force, RFC 3693 7617o 6. A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object Format, J. Peterson, Internet Engineering Task 7618 Force, RFC 4119 7619o 7. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Option for Coordinate-based Location Configuration 7620 Information, J. Polk, J. Schnizlein, M.

Linsner, Internet Engineering Task Force, RFC 3825 7621o 8. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) Option for Civic Addresses 7622 Configuration Information, H. Schulzrinne,

Internet Engineering Task Force, RFC 4776 7623o 9. HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD) M. Barnes, ed., Internet Engineering Task Force, 7624 RFC 5985 7625o 10. Session Initiation Protocol Location Conveyance, J. Polk, B. Rosen, Internet Engineering 7626 Task Force, RFC 6442 7627o 11. A Hitchhikers Guide to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), J. Rosenberg, Internet 7628 Engineering Task Force, RFC 5411 7629o 12. Session Initiation Protocol, J, Rosenberg et. al., Internet Engineering Task Force, RFC 3261 7630o 13. RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications, H. Schulzrinne et. al., Internet 7631 Engineering Task Force, RFC 3550 7632o 14. SDP: Session Description Protocol, J. Handley, V. Jacobson, Internet Engineering Task Force, 7633 RFC 4566 7634o 15. Session Initiation Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP Servers, J. Rosenberg, H. Schulzrinne, Internet 7635 Engineering Task Force, RFC 3263 7636o 16. An Offer/Answer (SIP)-Specific Event Notification, A. Roach, Internet Engineering 7639 Task Force, RFC 3265 7640o 18. The Session Initiation ProtModel with the Session Description Protocol (SDP), J. Rosenberg, H. 7637 Schulzrinne, Internet Engineering Task

Force, RFC 3264 7638o 17. Session Initiation Protocol ocol UPDATE Method, J. Rosenberg, Internet Engineering Task 7641 Force, RFC 3311 7642o 19. A Privacy Mechanism for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), J. Peterson, RFC 3323 7643

At the very least

• The recommended documents which will be found in the NENA NG9-1-1 GIS Data Model when it is formally adopted as a standardoShould be reviewed by GIS professionals intending to support the GIS

aspect of NG9-1-1

Where do we find the current standards?

• To start:ohttp://www.nena.org/oSelect the Standards & Best Practices section

NG9-1-1 documents have their own section

The Data Structures andData Management sections

• Also include documents specific to NG9-1-1

It is not necessary…

• To be a NENA member to access this section of the website

• Documents scheduled for public review will be announced on the home page under NENA News

It is necessary to be a NENA member

• To participate in the NENA Working Groups which are developing standardsoThere are attendance requirements for the WG participants

Questions?If we do not have an answer today,

we will get you one!

Address Issues PanelJustin Smith, Cumberland CountyTim Haynes, City of Philadelphia

Tim Murphy, GISP, Columbia CountyStacey Sekkes, GISP, Chester County

Address inconsistencies cause confusion and inefficiencies for dispatchers, service providers, residents, and GIS solutions.

Cumberland CountyJustin Smith, GIS Manager

Addresses with indirect access

• 42 addresses up to 4000 feet, into the forest, off of Pine Rd

• All 3 of these issues are on state roads

• PennDOT has been very receptive to road name and address number changes

Road is the boundary, with different names

• Hampden TownshipoSimpson Ferry Rd

• Mechanicsburg Borougho E Simpson St

• Work aroundoRoad name is Simpson Ferry RdoAlias name is E Simpson St

Name change when crossing boundary

• Hampden TownshipoSt Johns Church Rd

• Shiremanstown BoroughoN/S St Johns Rdo E Main St is North/South divide

• Lower Allen TownshipoN/S St Johns RdoGettysburg Rd is North/South divide

• Muni and Residents want changeoShiremanstown and Lower Allen

rename and readdress St Johns Rd

Address improvement process

• 33 municipal and 2 military addressing authorities• Identify and classify address issues• Document problems/delays in emergency response• Collaborate with municipal staff• Draft solutions for readdressing as few properties as possible• Build political capital with Public Safety to sell change

City of PhiladelphiaTim Haynes, Senior Lead Analyst

Issue 1: College Campuses

• Many campus buildings are not addressed, or all buildings share a single address

Saint Joseph’s University

Issue 2: Subterranean Addresses

Jefferson Station

• Underground addresses can be placed two ways:o At the actual location of the

address with the elevation attribute included

o At the ingress point of the underground entrance

Issue 3: Addressing Inconsistencies

• Multiple buildings using the same address• Addresses are derived from multiple sources, where inconsistencies can occur

Example: 6200 Frankford Ave

• Businesses at both parcels use the same address

• Parcels are listed under different addresses

Columbia countyTim Murphy, GIS Director

Challenges

• Unreliable GIS Data to start• Aggressive timeline • Staff constraints• Volume of calls by residents• **Update of online mapping and navigation systems**

Update of online mapping and navigation systems• Major delay involved in updating mapping systems

oGoogle, HERE, Apple

• Five months later, will not provide timeline for completion

Road name changes

• Example: Cardinal Rd / Century Rd

• In total 390 address changesby road name

Not on Google or GPS

Newly addressed private lanes

• Over 134 newly named and addressedprivate roads

• 952 new addresses on private lanes

Not on Google or GPS

Result

• Upset residents• Frustrated delivery drivers• Some emergency personnel continue to use, causing frustration

and delay• Blame placed on readdressing project

“Be patient…” only lasts so long* Massive number of change of addresses can take online mapping systems considerable time to be updated

Questions?

Lunch