[Address_fit] Draft Address Point Data Standard v0.5

[ELDER Tom * DAS]

Hi everyone,

Here is a copy of the latest version (0.5) of the draft Address Point Data Standard. We only received comments from two people (Alex Petzold, Jacob Blair) within the past month and most of them have already been incorporated into this version.

Here are the comment from Alex -

I wanted to discuss the street types, specifically, the street type domain you have included in the standard. I know I've talked to you about the third column titled "WVCC" and that I think this should be removed. Done

Here are the comments from Jacob (in his attached spreadsheet) and my responses below -

Section 2.3 - Fixed! Lane Council of Governments
Section 2.5.4 - Fixed! Title case first word
Section 2.5.4.2 - Commas. I have to think about this a little more. The complete street address was intended to include just the street address plus the unit address elements, not including the city, state, ZIP.
Section 3.3 - Taxlot fixed! Building ID still TBD from the new standard.
Section 3.3/3.4 - Street vs. Address number. I have to think about this a little more. I chose "Street" number deliberately to differentiate it from the Unit number. I thought that "Address" was too general because you can have a unit address with a street address.
Section 3.5 - Lat/Long accuracy. Six decimal places (+-  11 cm) is certainly the highest I would ever suggest. Five is fine (+- 1.1 m) but four (+- 11 m) probably too low for decent positioning on a building. I changed the wording to "Accuracy to five decimal places is recommended".
Section 3.4/Table D-1 - Fixed! County added to the name.

Please take a look at this revision and let me know what you think. I am also happy to schedule a work group meeting if folks feel that there are still things in this standard that should be discussed as a group. Otherwise, Melissa will send this version to one more small advisory group for their review. Once that is completed the final version will be sent to OGIC for their review and endorsement next month. Please feel free to send me any questions, comments, corrections, or suggestions.

Thanks for all your help!
Tom


Tom Elder, GISP
Senior GIS Analyst
Enterprise Information Services
Data Governance and Transparency
Cell: (503) 991-9868
[cid:image003.jpg at 01DB8CEF.22BA51F0]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://omls.oregon.gov/pipermail/address_fit/attachments/20250304/9b133690/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 8106 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <https://omls.oregon.gov/pipermail/address_fit/attachments/20250304/9b133690/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Data-Standards-Review-Comments-Jacob-Blair-LCOG-20250116-1.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 19740 bytes
Desc: Data-Standards-Review-Comments-Jacob-Blair-LCOG-20250116-1.xlsx
URL: <https://omls.oregon.gov/pipermail/address_fit/attachments/20250304/9b133690/attachment-0001.xlsx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Oregon DRAFT Address Point Standard for Public Review v0.5.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 834034 bytes
Desc: Oregon DRAFT Address Point Standard for Public Review v0.5.docx
URL: <https://omls.oregon.gov/pipermail/address_fit/attachments/20250304/9b133690/attachment-0001.docx>