Home arrow GIS Organizations arrow GISAC
NSGIC '08: Addressing, Lessons Learned PDF Print E-mail

Written by Bert Granberg,

One of the best lessons to take home from any National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC) conference is that if you need to build a new geospatial solution, there's almost always going to be someone a step or more ahead of you who has good advice to share. That's not to say that the perfect solution will just be dropped into your lap. But, tracking down folks with existing resources, or works in progress, will make your project planning much smoother.

Addressing: Think you've got issues?The importance of finding folks who have "been there, done that" is well-demonstrated in the area of point-based GIS addressing data (something currently on the drawing board in Utah). NSGIC has put together an excellent Address Coordinating Issues document and put together a great, experienced panel (from Indiana, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia) at its 2008 annual conference.

There was much variation in the approach described by the panelists. Both top down and bottom up approaches were successful for data collection. Costs ranged from $15K per county to $2-3 million upfront plus $200-500K for annual ongoing maintenance and, these cost figures were highly dependent on the availability of existing GIS data resources (parcels, centerlines, place names, etc). Update cycles ranged from monthly to quarterly to annually.

Here are several of the panelists' general suggestions for project success: 

  • Conduct an extensive assessment of end user needs
  • Adopt a single standard, but allow flexibility at local level where possible. Consider existing standards (URISA/NENA draft addressing standard )
  • Design a protocol for update and maintenance, who will be responsible...make sure that they are sufficeintly motivated?
  • Ensure management for entire life cycle of project
  • Build a sustainable funding source/mechanism, justify project with ROI study results
  • Encourage/facilitate communication among stakeholders
  • Implement trading partner agreements and consider matching funds and other incentives

GIS-based Address Data: Users and Purposes:

(source: Address Coordinating Issues document, NSGIC)

 

Users' Comments  
 

Display 2 of 2 comments

1. Fri, 09-12-2008 at 03:59 PM

I was excited to read the Address Coordinating Issues document linked from this article. Rather than bore everyone with a rehash of my views on this subject, I will just point to my previous post: http://gis.utah.gov/ addressing-standards/ for a common point of reference. I have commented on a few statements from the document below. 
 
The first thing that struck me was the vision statement: 
 
There will be a continuously updated, nationwide, publicly available address dataset, complete with geographic coordinates, that meets the needs of all stakeholders. 
 
In my view, the only way this could be improved is if you replaced "complete with geographic coordinates" with "in geographic coordinates." While I too find the address to be incomplete without geographic coordinates, I find no reason to supplement them with anything else. 
 
• Vehicle navigation, including emergency dispatch 
• Postal and package delivery 
• Administrative recordkeeping, including record-matching between different files, departments, or agencies. 
• Creation and maintenance of authoritative local address repositories 
• Address aggregation into regional, state, and national repositories 
 
With geographic coordinates, there is no ambiguity in emergency response. If the coordinates are correct, so will the response be correct.  
 
The same applies to deliveries with the added benefit of automated routing. 
 
If all the systems were based on latitude and longitude, record matching would be a simple matter of a spatial SQL query. 
 
The creation and maintenance phases become much more clear since everyone would be using the same system. There would be no reason for having to communicate the intricacies of separate systems and how to translate between them. 
 
A simple agreement on format and datum makes address aggregation a breeze.

2. Fri, 09-12-2008 at 04:02 PM

To continue (sorry, can't even get started in a mere 2000 characters :-) 
 
New investments in Phase II technology, which enables a wireless phone to transmit its geographic coordinates, are helping 9-1-1 centers to properly locate cell phone callers and dispatch the proper first responders who can find those locations.  
 
We are required to use geographic coordinates for cell phones. Why would we want to un-necessarily complicate the system by insisting on continuing to use complex systems to convert traditional addresses for landlines into geographic coordinates? Let's just keep it all coordinate based. 
 
Lack of coordinate information means that outside response teams, perhaps from adjoining communities, struggle to find unfamiliar addresses. 
 
This is a very good point. If the nation were to convert over to geographic coordinate based addressing, there would not be much of a learning curve even if you were responding to incidents half a country away. 
 
Inconsistent address systems clog communication among courts, sheriff offices, banks, inspectors, and residents. 
 
I do not believe that the average citizen can fully appreciate the gravity and cost of this problem. Again, with geographic coordinates, as long as they are correct, there is no ambiguity. 
 
Several states have developed statewide systems or support their counties in the development of federated systems that maintain and deliver address data across the state. 
 
I certainly add my voice to the call for the State of Utah to adopt latitude longitude based addressing.

Display 2 of 2 comments

Add your comment

09, Sep. 2008
Last Updated ( 09, Sep. 2008 )
 
Next >
[ Back ]

AGRC Contacts | UGIC Contacts

feed image feed image

Utah GIS Portal © 2009 AGRC

Optimized for