RE: Does anyone need a separate set oftagsfor"jurisdictional"vs"postallocations"?wasRE:[Geopriv]draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-01.txt

From: Marc Berryman ^lt;MBerryman@911.org>
Date: Wed Aug 08 2007 - 16:07:42 EDT

Whew,
 Glad to know the enhanced PIDF have different fields, my fault for not
reading the latest documents.

Marc B

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Rosen [mailto:br@brianrosen.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 2:59 PM
To: Marc Berryman; 'Marc Linsner'; jerome.grenier@bell.ca
Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Does anyone need a separate set
oftagsfor"jurisdictional"vs"postallocations"?wasRE:[Geopriv]draft-ietf-g
eopriv-http-location-delivery-01.txt

Always nice to have your point of view on this.

The PIDF part, which is how this discussion is framed, doesn't care if
the
post office won't deliver to a correct PIDF-encoded address.

Over in ecrit, the LoST database would have to have the locations in the
database, but they would encode nicely.

I don't want to get into marking a PIDF with what you can do with it.
That
way lies madness.

The recent enhancements to PIDF have a separate field for postal
community
name, because we know they are not the same as actual jurisdictional
community name.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Berryman [mailto:MBerryman@911.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 3:43 PM
> To: Brian Rosen; Marc Linsner; jerome.grenier@bell.ca
> Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Does anyone need a separate set
>
oftagsfor"jurisdictional"vs"postallocations"?wasRE:[Geopriv]draft-ietf-
> geopriv-http-location-delivery-01.txt
>
> Forgive me, but I am going to jump in on this bandwagon again. I tried
> not too, but...
>
> The i2 is correct by transforming a given postal valid address into a
> MSAG valid address. Forgoing the fact that MSAG as we know it will not
> be part of the i3, there is still an addressing validation process
that
> is mutually exclusive from the USPS (or Canadian) Postal formats.
>
> The USPS addressing and 9-1-1 addressing may be similar, but they are
> not interchangeable.
>
> There are many addresses in a 9-1-1 database that do not exist within
> any USPS database. Examples include "civic style addresses" along
marina
> boat slips, shores along a lake where people live (but use a common
> postal box delivery point), houseboats, beachfronts, trails, hike and
> bike paths, and so on. Then there is the issue with the manner in
which
> the US Postal Service has defined their standards.
>
>
> Postal 9-1-1
> 602 Sawyer St, Houston, TX 602 Sawyer St, Missouri City, TX
>
> The Postal Community is Houston, but the jurisdictional address in
> within the city limits of Missouri City. The Postal would route
> incorrectly to Houston, rather than Missouri City.
>
> It is very rare, at least in many parts of the US, that the
> jurisdictional community and the postal community boundaries match
each
> other.
>
> ------
> Other examples taken from the USPS include the following.
>
> USPS Publication No. 28: Section 222
> "Information found in the primary name field of the ZIP+4 File is used
> as the
> street name."
>
> Postal 9-1-1
> 865 North Highway 290 865 US 290 N
>
> 9-1-1 Sorry, not even close, the Street Names is the Legal Street Name
> given by the LOCAL Addressing Authority, not the US Postal Service.
> -----
> USPS Pub No 28: Section 235
> "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."
>
> Postal 9-1-1
> 717 Seventh St, Houston, TX 717 7th St, Houston TX
>
> 9-1-1 The Street Name is the official name as designated by the local
> addressing authority, NOT what is within the USPS Zip+4 file
> -----
> The USPS allows for the same street names and overlapping address
ranges
> within a postal community, AS LONG AS IT IS IN A DIFFERENT ZIP CODE.
>
> 9-1-1 No similar sounding street names nor overlapping address ranges
> are allowed with a given jurisdictional community. Note: This is why
> some cities have a 602 17th St and a 602 Seventeenth St in the same
> city.
> --------------
> USPS Pub No 28: allows for Periods (39.2 Rd), Slashes (101 1/2 Main
St),
> Hyphens (289-01 Montgomery Ave), all of which interfere with geocoding
> and other operations.
> -----------
>
> USPS Pub No 28: 24 Rural Route Addresses
> Rural Routes are acceptable to the USPS
>
> 9-1-1 Rural Routes are not acceptable to Enhanced 911 services. All
> roads with two or more structures (e.g. homes, residences, buildings,
> etc...), should be named and addressed.
> ------------------
>
> USPS Pub No 28: 26 General Delivery Addresses
> Acceptable to the USPS
>
> 9-1-1 General delivery addresses are not acceptable to providing
> emergency services.
> -----------------
> USPS Pub No 28: 28 Post Office Box Addresses
> Acceptable to the USPS
>
> 9-1-1 Post Office Box addresses are not acceptable to providing
> emergency services.
> --------------
> USPS Pub No 28: D3 Alphanumeric Combinations of Address Ranges
> Allows for alphanumeric charcters in the house address.
>
> 9-1-1 This does not allow for geocoding addresses based on street
> centerline data.
> -------------------
> USPS Pub No 28: D4 Fractional Addresses
> Allows for alphanumeric charcters in the house address., example used
by
> USPS. These are represented as three or four character positions (for
> example, 123
> 1/2 MAIN ST). 123 1/2 takes seven character positions in the range
> field.
>
> 9-1-1 This does not allow for geocoding addresses based on street
> centerline data.
>
> -------------------------
>
>
>
> Marc B
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Rosen [mailto:br@brianrosen.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 1:36 PM
> To: 'Marc Linsner'; jerome.grenier@bell.ca
> Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Does anyone need a separate set
>
oftagsfor"jurisdictional"vs"postallocations"?wasRE:[Geopriv]draft-ietf-g
> eopriv-http-location-delivery-01.txt
>
> Right.
>
> The basis for the entire i2 infrastructure, which really is the same
> basis
> for the LoST infrastructure was that there really is ONE authoritative
> address, which is what is in the database. As long as you can
uniquely
> identify an address, you can map to any other form of address you
like.
>
>
> The i2 solution, in particular, admits that the current addressing
used
> by
> at least the U.S. emergency authorities sometimes differs from the
> actual
> jurisdictional address, but except for alias/AKA stuff, the postal
> authorities DO conform to the local address authority (noting, as I
did,
> that there are some local postmasters who don't follow the rules the
> USPS
> puts out). I suspect that Canada Post does the same, but that's the
> question we want answered definitively.
>
> In the i2 specification, the MSAG version of the location is stored in
a
> database keyed by the jurisdictional address, which is what the rest
of
> the
> system uses. It may be simpler for you if MSAG always is the same as
> jurisdictional.
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marc Linsner [mailto:mlinsner@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 2:21 PM
> > To: jerome.grenier@bell.ca; br@brianrosen.net
> > Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: Does anyone need a separate set of
> > tagsfor"jurisdictional"vs"postal
locations"?wasRE:[Geopriv]draft-ietf-
> > geopriv-http-location-delivery-01.txt
> >
> > Jerome,
> >
> > >
> > > I'm open to other solutions, but allowing only postal civic
> > > addresses, as it stands right now, would imply a lower
> > > quality of the E9-1-1 service.
> > >
> >
> > Do you not agree with the i2 solution?
> >
> > If you are able to cross reference the 'common-use' civil address to
> your
> > 'richer' SAG location during the validation process, then you will
be
> able
> > to cross reference that same 'common-use' information during the
call
> > routing and the responder dispatch processes.
> >
> > Agree?
> >
> > -Marc-
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Wed, 8 Aug 2007 15:07:42 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 08 2007 - 16:09:42 EDT