Subject: RE: [Geopriv] URI in civic-lo

From: "Marc Berryman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 07:15:50 -0600

NENA does refer to USPS No. 28, but that publication has many acceptable
examples that are not really acceptable in the 911 area. I think we have
spoken several times in the past about these "issues", and the fact it
is a US postal standard and not an international addressing standard. 

Some of the issues within the USPS Publication No. 28, with reference
cited,  that I take issue with include:

232 Street Name
Information found in the primary name field of the ZIP+4 File is used as
the
street name. The ZIP+4 File indicates the preferred primary street name
to
ensure that the correctly designated primary street record is matched
during
the address standardization processes.
	The Street Name is the official name as designated by the local
addressing authority, NOT the name given in the Zip+4 File!!.

 213.3 Alternate Location
Allows for alternate Location - not useful, and could be confusing, for
emergency responders 

215 Dual Addresses
Allows for Dual Addresses - not useful, and could be confusing, for
emergency responders 

235 Numeric Street Names
Numeric street names, for example, 7TH ST or SEVENTH ST, should be
output on the mailpiece exactly as they appear in the ZIP+4 File.
	The Street Name is the official name as designated by the local
addressing authority, not the one in the Zip+4 File. In our area 123 7th
St and 123 Seventh St are different streets that exist within the same
Emergency Service Zone, they are not interchangeable.

There are more, but I think one gets the idea.

Marc Berryman

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Henning Schulzrinne
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 9:13 PM
To: Thomson, Martin
Cc: [email-masked]; Andrew Daviel; Andrew Daviel
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] URI in civic-lo

I would note that NENA refers to USPS Pub. No. 28 as its addressing 
guideline. It goes into great detail, such as describing appropriate 
abbreviations for streets (Ave, Blvd, etc.).

It would be nice if there were pointers to similar documents for other 
jurisdictions. These are often hard to find, so having these cited 
somewhere is useful, but maybe a web page is a more appropriate resource

for that. I'd gladly take pointers. Maybe the PIDF-LO civic revision can

also point to these, as having some such pointers is better than none, 
even if the list can never be complete and if some of the information 
may be outdated at some point.

Thomson, Martin wrote:
> To my view, this discussion can be broken down into two pieces: 
> 
> The first part: is the current scheme for describing the meaning of
the civic fields mean adequate?
> 
> The current scheme consists of a series of English language
descriptions of the fields, with some specific meaning given to the
fields depending on the country.  I tend to agree with Henning that the
descriptions are sufficiently precise.
> 
> The second part: should addresses be normalized in some fashion?
> 
> NENA has stated that they want this for their civic addresses - they
define a VDB that is responsible for this task.  Obviously, someone
considers this important, but is this a requirement for GEOPRIV, or are
we happy to leave this to other groups?  Do we need to provide them with
some guidance, a framework or such?
> Cheers,
> Martin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
> This message is for the designated recipient only and may
> contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
> If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
> immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
> this email is prohibited.
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
> [mf2]

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 16:28:42 -0500

I think the general gist is that valid emergency addresses also tend to 
be valid postal addresses, but the converse is not always true. I'll add 
the list to my civic address notes collection.

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 16:35:04 -0500

Just to add one more thought: I don't think the IETF is the right body 
to define address usage within jurisdictions. We just have to make sure 
  that the vast majority of addresses can be represented reasonably 
well. It is then up to local authorities, emergency response-related 
organizations, postal authorities and validation engines to provide 
guidance on local rules on content.

As per your example, I would find it really confusing if I had to ask 
"Do you live on number seventh street or spelled-out seventh street". 
One would hope that they are in different towns...

---

From: Andrew Daviel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:51:19 -0800 (PST)

> the list to my civic address notes collection.

"tend to", maybe. But there are a whole lot of recreational properties
without postal service, or whose postal service is a box number in the
nearest town. Then there are funny things like live-aboards at a marina,
whose "address" might include a pier and slip number, and millions of
people living in slums or refugee camps. Hopefully these cases can
be handled via some mechanism like GPS or mobile cell mapping, as for
vehicles, but you can't assume that everyone's dwelling  has a "normal"
North American type address. (given the slum problem, I wonder about the
0.01% figure ..)

However, in the interests of actually getting anything done, I'll
stop nit-picking as long as it is acknowledged that this kind of
schema cannot describe every fixed location that might need emergency
service.

Andrew Daviel
Vancouver Webpages

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:43:55 -0500

There are limits to how many outliers any kind of standard can cover.  Pier
and slip number may or may not be part of a community's addressing
standards.  If it is, then such addresses would exist in the mapping and
validation database.  If they don't then you would have some kind of "main
address" (i.e. the street address of the marina) and any additional info
would be in text fields (like LOC).  

We don't have to be so worried about every special case.  What we need to
cover is when there IS an addressing standard; our standard needs to
accommodate it.  So far I think we are okay.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Andrew Daviel
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 4:51 PM
To: Henning Schulzrinne
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] URI in civic-lo

Andrew Daviel
Vancouver Webpages

---

From: Andrew Daviel <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:48:12 -0800 (PST)

> would be in text fields (like LOC).

If there's some place to put data that won't fit in the scheme, and it
has enough space allocated to it, good. I don't really expect there to be
fields for every possible case; we just need a way to handle them. There
will always be odd cases (Harry Potter, the floor, hut on the rock ...)

I just realized my "slip and pier" case was perhaps unconsciously based on
a real case. A few weeks ago I met two police wandering around the marina
at dusk, They had a 911 call that gave a boat name (but no slip). I didn't
recognize the name, the office was closed, you can't get onto the piers
without the right key ... I remembered the yard foreman lived in a trailer
nearby and asked if he could help ...
 - that's probably quite a difficult problem, like someone making a
cellphone call from a carpark. You need quite good spatial resolution
to find the right boat or car among all the others.

Andrew Daviel
Vancouver Webpages

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 09:29:15 -0500

Andrew,

please see

   LOC: LOC ("location", CAtype 22) is an unstructured string specifying
       additional information about the location, such as the part of a
       building.

   NAM: The NAM object is used to aid user location ("Joe Miller"
       "Alice's Dry Cleaning").  It does not identify the person using a
       communications device, but rather the person or organization
       associated with the address.

in the civic draft as a means to add unstructured location information. 
In general, it is probably very hard to use the type of locations you 
describe since there's no automated way to discover those. How would a 
boat know what slip it is in? A much more likely case is that the boat's 
name will be encoded in NAM, for example.

Henning