1 / 32

A Standardized Official Address and Point for Every Occupiable Unit? Metro Wide? Are we Nuts?

A Standardized Official Address and Point for Every Occupiable Unit? Metro Wide? Are we Nuts?. MetroGIS Address Workgroup Mark Kotz, Metropolitan Council. January 12, 2006 Hennepin County GIS Users Group. Imagine If . . . Database with every occupiable unit

grizelda
Download Presentation

A Standardized Official Address and Point for Every Occupiable Unit? Metro Wide? Are we Nuts?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Standardized Official Address and Point for Every Occupiable Unit?Metro Wide?Are we Nuts? MetroGIS Address Workgroup Mark Kotz, Metropolitan Council January 12, 2006 Hennepin County GIS Users Group

  2. Imagine If . . . Database with every occupiable unit Accurate “official” address and point Neighboring communities sharing this data Updated weekly or daily.

  3. Vision of the MetroGIS Address Workgroup More Detail in Paper (online)

  4. What we Believe… There is a need It will be a benefit to cities Will not be easy – long term vision.

  5. Definitions “Occupiable Unit” is… Addressing authority is…

  6. Overview • Do we need better Address Data? • Workgroup Investigations and Conclusions • The Vision • The Key = Local Government.

  7. Existing Address Data • Tabular addresses (no geography, not regional) • Street centerlines with address ranges • Parcel data.

  8. Street Centerlines with Address Ranges

  9. Parcel Data

  10. Parcel Data

  11. Parcel Data

  12. Parcel Data

  13. Parcel Data

  14. March, 2004 MetroGIS Forms Address Workgroup Kotz wins Tour de France Eberle Seen on Mars

  15. Active Workgroup Members Dave Brandt, Washington County GIS Chad Bargo, City of Maplewood Gordon Chinander, Metro Emergency Services Board Amy Geisler, City of Ramsey Planning Jeff Gottstein, Woodbury PD Peter Henschel, Carver County GIS Deb Jones, Falcon Heights & Ramsey Co. User Group Joel Koepp, City of Roseville Mark Kotz, Metropolitan Council Christine Meyer, St. Paul Water Utility Erin Naughton, Minneapolis GIS Nancy Read, Metropolitan Mosquito Control District Lynn Rohe, Scott County Planning/Zoning & PSAP Todd Sieben, Washington County Surveyor’s Office Scott Simmer, Hennepin County GIS John Slusarczck, Anoka County GIS Kent Tupper, Dakota County GIS Ben Verbick, LOGIS

  16. Investigations & Conclusions • Defined scope = “situs” address of occupiable units • Understand how addresses are created & flow • Stakeholder surveys • County data flow diagrams • Analyzed results & compared to unmet needs • Developed a vision to meet the needs.

  17. Stakeholder Interviews • All 7 counties • Cities Carver, Ramsey & Scott counties + Minneapolis • Anoka county: School district, busing company, electrical utility, ambulance service, solid waste service.

  18. Conclusions Most addresses created at city level Many addressing authorities, many processes Address “Records” vary tremendously Records updated right away.

  19. Conclusions Continued… Data flow is complicated & different everywhere Outflow is inconsistent between sources Standard process wanted Single “official” source desired by many.

  20. The Vision Proposes… Point datasets of occupiable units & addresses Created by each official addressing authority Compiled into regional dataset Available for free to metro government Other access determined by local authorities.

  21. Key Aspects of Vision • Street naming & address assignment = out of scope • Database includes parcel relate • Standard data transfer format.

  22. National Address Data Standard MetroGIS helped write data content part Second review comment period ends Monday Broader review expected in the spring http://www.urisa.org/address_data_standard.htm

  23. More Key Aspects… New points added when official (building permit) Multiple avenues to create, maintain, store data Potential Internet maintenance application Pilot study recommended (next step).

  24. Implementation Concepts • Organizational roles • Addressing authority • Intermediate aggregators • Regional custodian • Facilitated approach • Regional data standard • Starter dataset from parcel points • Online editing application

  25. Local Government is Key Cities & Counties = official addressing authority! They know their jurisdiction They update their address records quickly Strong connection to emergency responders.

  26. What’s in it for Them? • Existing distribution process • Single official source = others can clean up data • Allows creation of regional applications • Mailing labels for occupants • Cascading address matching/geocoding • Helps their emergency responders.

  27. What’s in it for Them? Way to track occupiable units Availability of data across borders Several already starting.

  28. Resources & Challenges Continuous maintenance Impact on current workflow & procedures Might be a paradigm shift Workload & expertise varies by city.

  29. Summary • Clear government need • single source of accurate “official” address • emergency response • track occupiable units • Must be embraced by local government • Will be difficult for many – think long term.

  30. Questions? Feedback? Mark Kotzmark.kotz@metc.state.mn.usVision Document on Web at:http://www.metrogis.org/data/info_needs/street_addresses/add_wkgp.shtml

More Related