1

NGAC National Address Database Paper – December 2012

The Need for a National Address Database

A Report Submitted by the

National Geospatial Advisory Committee

December 2012

1. Introduction and FGDC Guidance

Among the key issues assigned for National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC) review during 

2012, the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) requested advice regarding a National 

Address Database:

Numerous stakeholders have identified a critical need for a National Address Database. A 

complete, current, and accurate address list (such as street number, street name, city, 

state, zip), along with the associated geocodes and x, y coordinates (such as 

Latitude/Longitude, GML point geometry, spatial reference system) and associated 

metadata are essential for a variety of government and non-government functions, 

including emergency response, conducting the Census, income tax collection, delivering the 

mail, planning, routing, and many others. Currently, many agencies and organizations 

either collect, purchase, or lease address information in a non-coordinated fashion. The 

FGDC is requesting that NGAC develop a white paper addressing the following points: 

1. The need for a National Address Database and the benefits and potential savings 

and efficiencies that will be realized 

2. Potential concerns about a National Address Database, including privacy issues 

3. Possible approaches for development of a National Address Database, including 

the roles of Federal, State, local, and Tribal governments, commercial partners, as 

well as other stakeholders1

In response, the NGAC formed a National Address Database Subcommittee2to prepare 

recommendations for consideration to the NGAC as a whole and to the FGDC. This report, which 

is organized as a response to the three points raised by the FGDC, is a summary of the analysis 

performed by the National Address Database Subcommittee and of the subsequent review and 

comment by the NGAC as a whole.

2. Vision

Current and accurate nationwide address data, in an open standards-based digital geospatial 

format, is critical to the quality and cost-effective provision of innumerable services provided by 

multiple levels of government and supporting commerce. It is an essential requirement for a 

variety of functions, including emergency management, as well as administration, research, 

publications, mapping, routing, navigation, and many other purposes. 

 

The NGAC believes there is a critical need for a National Address Database as a single repository 

for storing, aggregating, and sharing essential address information. To meet this need, agencies 

closest to the task and with the most at stake must be empowered and funded to develop, 

maintain, and share standardized digital geospatial address data. 
2

NGAC National Address Database Paper – December 2012

The NGAC proposes the following Vision Statement for a National Address Database. 

“The National Address Database is an authoritative and publicly available resource that 

provides accurate address location information to save lives, reduce costs, and improve 

service provision for public and private interests.”

To achieve this vision, the National Address Database is conceived as:

“A continuously updated, nationwide, publicly available address database, with 

associated geographic coordinates, that meets the needs of Federal, Tribal, State and 

local stakeholders. The database stores all residential and non-residential structures 

and interior units, mailing addresses, plus other locations of critical interest (e.g., 

highways, bridges, and landmarks). This database is an inventory and a standardsbased, distributed network of sources rather than a single, centralized database. Most 

address data are developed locally, with local and state custodians acting as regional 

integrators who merge local data into region-wide databases. The data are updated 

in a timely and quality-controlled manner. Federal stakeholders consume and use 

locally developed and aggregated address data stored in a standardized National 

Address Database.”

The NGAC also recognizes the significance of OMB Circular A-130, “Management of Federal 

Information Resources.”

3

 Section 7, subsection b notes, “Government information is a valuable 

national resource. ... It is a means to ensure the accountability of government, to manage the 

government's operations, to maintain the healthy performance of the economy, and is itself a 

commodity in the marketplace.” Section 7, subsection c adds, “The free flow of information 

between the government and the public is essential to a democratic society.” The issue of public 

access to the National Address Database must be discussed and resolved.

3. Why a National Address Database Is Needed

Currently, there is no publicly available address database that can be used for public safety, and 

other governmental purposes, to accurately locate any given address on a map throughout the 

United States. There are a myriad of reasons as to why the Nation needs a National Address 

Database. The primary reasons include: 

3.1 Emergency Response and Public Safety

Addresses are the most commonly used way to communicate the location of an emergency. 

Improving the ability to locate an incident quickly and accurately for emergency response and 

public safety is the most compelling reason to develop and maintain a shared National Address 

Database. There is an increasing need to share accurate address location resources between 

public safety and emergency response agencies for coordination and/or the ability to provide failover backups to each other. This need will increase with the advent of Next Generation 9-1-1

3.2 Improve Services

Critical and essential government services, as well as businesses and individuals, depend on access 

to digital addresses and their geographic locations to satisfy their mandates, meet business 

objectives and achieve efficiencies. The Federal government alone builds, maintains and pays for 

multiple address databases that are, to varying degrees, redundant in terms of basic data. Each 
3

NGAC National Address Database Paper – December 2012

responsible agency has a stake in maintaining these databases to meet its specific agency 

requirements in achieving its mission. The result is inconsistent national addresses, redundant 

business processes, and extra costs as multiple agencies expend budget on developing the same 

data.

The table below provides examples of how address data are used. The listed government 

agencies require high quality, current address data to perform their functions.

USERS PURPOSE

FEMA Pinpoint disaster areas, provide relief 

Emergency Response, E9-1-1 Emergency response by first responders (police, fire, ambulance, 

rescue)

Department of Homeland Security Locate and protect critical infrastructure 

Public Safety Crime analysis and response, incident/citation tracking 

Voter Registration Precinct assignment 

State Dept. of Revenue Sales tax collection and distribution 

USPS, UPS, FedEx Mail and package delivery 

Census Bureau Mail census and survey forms, geocode responses; Census 

gathering and tracking; locate non-respondents

Health and Human Services Agency Track medical benefits, disease, births/deaths, and vulnerable 

populations. 

Call Before You Dig (8-1-1) Infrastructure protections, development coordination 

Department of Transportation Locate traffic accidents, access to FHWA funds to improve 

dangerous non-state roads. 

Utilities (public & private) Hookup, service calls, billing, broadband buildout

Map and address companies (e.g. 

MapQuest, Navteq and TomTom) 

Repackage/reformat accurate data for insurance companies, 

location based service companies and utilities 

Retail/Services (e.g., Sears, local plumber) Delivery of goods and services, new site locations

Assessor/Taxation Property and owner location 

Planning & Zoning Office Building permit, planning studies 

3.3 Current Address Systems Are Fragmented

Many local Address Authorities, usually a city, town, or county, create addresses. The new 

address information is provided to the property owner and is usually distributed to other 

organizations that need it. These organizations include various city and county offices, the U.S.

Postal Service (USPS), the Census Bureau, telephone companies, utilities, school districts, and 9-1-

1 authorities. From that point, each of these organizations is responsible for maintaining its own 

address file. Significant problems result from the current fragmented state of address systems, 

including: 

 Conflicting and incompatible standards for address data 

 Budget and effort spent on maintaining competing redundant, incomplete, and scattered 

databases 

 Wasted taxpayer money as multiple agencies collect and maintain similar data. 

 9-1-1 (emergency response), 8-1-1 (call-before-you-dig) and 3-1-1 (outage/repair) services 

cannot wait until structures are built or homes are occupied for the creation of address 

locations 

 Timing inconsistencies in the assignment of addresses as parcels are created or changed

 Agency databases diverging over time 
4

NGAC National Address Database Paper – December 2012

 Inconsistent delivery of new addresses to stakeholders 

 Inconsistent capture of geographic coordinates of addresses

 Inconsistent assignment of addresses by geographic coordinates (reverse geocoding) for 

burgeoning location-based services commerce

 Agencies such as the USPS cannot keep up with, nor verify, the 2 million new addresses 

added each year and must rely on input from cities and their own carriers. The Decennial 

Census suffers from the same business-process problem. However, these inputs are often 

inconsistent or not timely.4

3.4 Real and Potential Cost Savings

Integrating and standardizing disparate address data will eliminate redundant data and processes, 

thus saving taxpayer dollars, improving efficiencies, as well as providing higher quality service, and 

authoritative address data for improved delivery of services. More importantly, this approach will 

further reduce the likelihood of address discrepancies and conflicts related to emergency 

response and government and commercial service provision, saving resources and lives. 

 Many jurisdictions and government agencies maintain multiple, redundant or inconsistent 

address data about the same territories, causing significant additional expenses in both 

collecting the data and reconciling differences among the various databases.

 States working to collect and distribute sales taxes are struggling to do their work economically 

and equitably. Because tax rates can vary across each state, knowing which addresses are in 

each tax jurisdiction will improve collecting taxes on goods purchased by mail order or through 

the Internet.5

 Increased transparency and opportunities to identify potential cost savings will result from 

using addresses to conduct geographic-based fraud analysis.

3.5 Unrealized Benefits

Aside from improving the ability for emergency response and public safety to save lives by locating 

people quickly and accurately, a national-scale, accessible address database will also deliver 

significant secondary benefits. As an example of potential benefits, the Danish Government 

opened its address register to the public in 2002. A recent study determined the direct economic 

benefit of sharing their national address data is $18 million annually. Seventy percent of the 

economic benefits went to the private sector, benefitting the economy directly, while thirty 

percent went to the public sector. 

Similarly, the State of Oregon is advancing a centralized, web-based address point database that 

would be built and maintained by local address authorities. Justifications include decreasing 

overall effort and cost, increasing accuracy, access and improving emergency response and the 

provision of myriad other governmental services.

4. Potential Concerns with a National Address Database

4.1 Census and Title 13 Limits on Sharing Address Data

If not for the limitations on address data sharing under Title 136, U.S. Code, the Census Bureau’s 

Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System 

(MAF/TIGER) System would be a logical starting point for a National Address Database. In addition 

to site addresses, there are coordinates associated with each housing unit, thus making it useful 

for emergency response in the public safety arena, as well as the delivery goods and services to 
5

NGAC National Address Database Paper – December 2012

citizens in both urban and rural areas. The Census Bureau has decades of experience updating, 

verifying, and maintaining addresses, and more importantly, has built partnerships with thousands 

of governments that participate in the Census Bureau’s address data update efforts. However, 

Title 13 constrains the use of MAF/TIGER data. Robert Groves, former director of the Census 

Bureau, stated in an interview with the Washington Post, “because of the Constitution, the 

country will always have a census. But how we do the census and surveys will have to change.” 

For example, a unified National Address Database could include addresses, but not the occupant 

or owner of the structure at that address. The supplementary address could be maintained 

separately by the Census Bureau and a link established to the National Address Database.

Title 13, U.S. Code describes the overall duties and responsibilities of the U.S. Census Bureau. 

Given the complexities of modifying Title 13, the NGAC approach is to identify options for 

developing a National Address Database by focusing on changes to existing roles, responsibilities 

and workflows within the scope of existing statutes. 

4.2 Addresses and Public Privacy 

The NGAC recognizes that concerns with privacy issues are vitally important and need to be 

addressed in the development of a National Address Database. As a means to allay these 

concerns, we believe that a National Address Database should only contain addresses and not 

contain identities of individuals, owners, or occupants. 

Addresses exist to better describe physical locations for human end-users. Address assignment is 

largely, if not entirely, a public act of government. Official recognition of an address is best when 

it comes from the appropriate address authority, but if a provider of public services (e.g., 9-1-1 

authorities and public utilities) recognizes an address it is also inherently public information. It is 

strongly in the public interest to know if 9-1-1 and other services have the correct location for 

specific addresses. In addition, when address locations are publicly available, the public can act in 

its self-interest, sharing in the responsibility for the maintenance of accurate address data. There 

may be cases where addresses and their locations have a legitimate need for protection (e.g., 

military and other national security installations). In such cases, reasonable National Address 

Database policies should be developed to protect or exclude these addresses. The State of 

Florida’s public records statutes, especially Chapter 92, provide examples of redaction related to 

public safety officials.

4.3 Census and USPS

A single Federal entity, such as the Census Bureau or U.S. Postal Service (USPS), or combination of 

the two, could be identified as the potential custodian of a National Address Database developed 

to be comprehensive in its structure. The Census Bureau currently maintains the Master Address 

File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (MAF/TIGER System), a 

nationwide address database, with cooperative input from the USPS and tribal, state and local 

governments. As discussed previously, the Census Bureau (Title 13), as well as the USPS (Title 

397), both cite federal law and court decisions for their inability to share their respective data 

inventories of street addresses and corresponding geographic coordinates. In addition, the 

irregular periodicity of the Census’s data update cycle and the USPS’s focus on only deliverable 

addresses are barriers that would need to be overcome if either organization were to steward a 

National Address Database. This could be accomplished by an approach such as the National 

Information Exchange Model (NIEM), which defines standard data structures and formats for data 

sharing.
6

NGAC National Address Database Paper – December 2012

4.4 Military Addresses

While there is a need for security of address information for military bases, this must be balanced 

with the public safety needs of the personnel living and working on these bases. Most military 

bases have agreements with local government agencies (city/county) for reciprocal services in the 

case of major emergencies or failures of key infrastructure. A number of bases have agreements 

with local counties for additional police support in the event of a major incident and for fire 

response in the case of a major fire. For these responding units to know where the emergency is, 

the base must share address and building number information with local governments. To 

balance the security needs, withholding the specific function of an address or building can protect 

information about “what the building is or how it is used.” While this is critical information for the 

first responders (military assets), it is not critical for the local agency responders. Rather the 

critical information is “where” the building is in relation to the streets and cross streets contained 

on the base. Sharing minimal locational information will facilitate emergency response and still 

protect the security interests of the nation and the base, as well as the privacy of its residents and 

workers. There are many cases of injury or death of military family members and military/civilian 

DOD personnel on military installations/ bases that might have been avoided if accurate addresses 

were available. The fact that DOD made a policy decision that where street addresses are

provided to the 2010 Decennial Census Collection effort, that Census listers would not collect 

housing unit locations for addresses (x, y coordinate locations for housing units), for security and 

privacy reasons. This may still leave military, civilians and family members at increased risk. We 

believe the DOD, as well as the nation, must come up with an optimal solution that provides for a 

balance among security, privacy and safety concerns.

4.5 Additional Considerations

As a nation, we face several additional problems due to the lack of a National Address Database. 

Lives and property may be lost because first responders cannot quickly obtain an address to 

accurately locate an emergency event. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the lack of address 

information, which accurately located where people lived, slowed and frustrated rescue and 

recovery operations. It is a problem today as properties go into foreclosure and inconsistent 

address information hampers communication among courts, law enforcement, banks, inspectors, 

home owners and residents. Construction sites create an ongoing dispatch problem because 

there is often no worksite address where 9-1-1 centers can send assistance to injured workers. To 

address these concerns, and related issues of liability, a National Address Database should be built 

to the highest standards of accuracy.

5. National Address Database Development Options

5.1 Current Practices

Many local governments have developed centralized databases that share information across 

departments and with the local 9-1-1 authority. Successful models assign addresses early in the 

development process, beginning with the acceptance of subdivision plats and authorization of 

building permits. Geographic coordinates are added from GPS field measurements, 

orthophotography or official maps and sketches of building location submitted with the permit 

application. New addresses are verified with quality control procedures before being accepted. 

Information is sent to all stakeholders - directly or via a regional custodian - as soon as the address 

is issued. 
7

NGAC National Address Database Paper – December 2012

In a few places, the county or 9-1-1 authority has become the regional custodian assuming 

responsibility for maintaining a central authoritative database. The regional custodian is 

responsible for synchronizing new information streaming in from cities and towns (with various 

levels of computer sophistication and in different formats). Corrections identified by any of the 

participants are reported back to the local and regional custodians where they are verified, 

standardized, documented, and distributed. Address and their geographic coordinates are made 

available to the public via the Internet; while personal information, such as name and phone 

number, are kept private. 

Several states have developed a statewide system, or support their counties in the development 

of a federated system that maintains and delivers address data across the state. Maine, 

Connecticut, and Vermont collect address data from their towns. Rhode Island is developing a 

similar system. Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia are building systems that will collect address data 

from their counties. Arkansas has created a state-level database of address ranges. States are 

also finding a variety of ways to fund these efforts. Vermont uses 9-1-1 fees to cover the cost of 

their system. The Ohio program includes both roads and addresses, and matches local funding 

with state capital funding and funding from other sources. Utah, using NTIA SBI funding, is in the 

process of signing contracts with counties that require the compilation and maintenance of a 

master address list (including geographic coordinates) via a public-facing, web-based end point. 

County Commissions must also designate a single point of contact for the ongoing address point 

project.

The National Emergency Number Association (NENA) is working diligently to assist local 9-1-1 

authorities as they move to the Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG911). NG911 is driving requirements 

for better, more accurate mapping so that emergency calls made with mobile devices that 

transmit their location coordinates (points) can be accurately matched to street addresses and 

other map data, using GIS, to assist 9-1-1 dispatchers.

5.2 Best Practices

The National Address Database should be built using consistent, Federal government standards. 

The FGDC has adopted the United States Thoroughfare, Landmark, and Postal Address Data 

Standard (FGDC-STD-016-2011). Once implemented, this standard will make it significantly easier 

to share data across jurisdictions and upward to state and national repositories. The standard 

may also be useful for address data integrators to use as a common format for disparate address 

data coming from various local entities. It may be more useful to all as data templates and 

conversion tools become available to assist in its implementation. 

The National Address Database data aggregation and maintenance process must be effective and 

efficient while allowing for flexibility from data partners to account for their diverse technological 

capabilities and resource availability. Options for the use of web services, bulk loading operations 

and cloud-based heads up editing are all likely to become part of the ultimate solution. Local 

expertise is critical to the initial National Address Database creation and its ongoing maintenance 

and enhancement; web-based strategies that deploy this expertise using standards-based 

technology platforms and databases will enhance efficiency and effectiveness. This is especially 

true when the need for data currency and quality control feedback mechanisms are examined.
8

NGAC National Address Database Paper – December 2012

5.3 Workflows and the Role of Government and the Private Sector

Strategic and business plans specifically oriented toward address data creation, maintenance and 

access need to be developed. There is a role for each level of government as well as the private 

sector. In general terms, these roles may include: 

 Local government continues to be the Address Authority, creating new addresses as 

needed, using national standards and associating these addresses with x-y-z coordinates. 

An elevation, ‘z’ value, is critical for flooding and hurricanes as well as public response to 

multistory buildings. The addition of ‘z’ may take years to complete, but to achieve the 

highest standard of data the National Address Database should include this essential 

element.

 Counties or 9-1-1 authorities serve as the regional custodians of the data; receiving local 

updates and distributing address and coordinate data free of charge to the participants. 

 States provide statewide coordination and technical support to local government and 9-1-

1 authorities. States integrate the address data using accepted standards and provide 

data aggregation services to state and national interests. 

 Federal government supports the National Address Database portfolio management, 

following the tenets of the A-16 Supplemental Guidance, as a shared resource allowing 

updates from authorized federal agencies, as well as state and regional custodians. 

 Private sector is available to support data and system development for any level of 

government. It is further anticipated that the private sector would assist in the 

development of the National Address Database. If access is provided, commercial 

software companies could provide workflows and templates based on accepted national 

standards to facilitate the creation of address databases. 

5.4 Development Options

Several potential options are identified for the development and management of a National 

Address Database. Examples include the following:

5.4.1 Option 1: Single Steward

A single Federal government agency, such as the Census Bureau, could be designated to 

coordinate the creation and maintenance of the National Address Database. This 

approach, while efficient, would necessitate mitigating the constraints of Title 13 and Title 

39 if Census or USPS were selected as steward.

5.4.2 Option 2: Multiple Stewards

Specific stakeholder agencies (e.g., DHS, Commerce, USPS and HUD) could come together 

to form a new organization to steward a shared process for building a National Address 

Database. The Census Bureau has expertise and existing data resources to contribute, but 

it may be undesirable for the Census Bureau to build the National Address Database 

unless it is clearly developed or housed outside Title 13 restrictions. DHS has the most 

natural tie to the 9-1-1 community (local governments that are best positioned to ensure 

the accurate mapping of every address). The Department of Commerce and DHS have ties 

to residential addresses, plus additional commercial and industrial addresses, that the 

Census Bureau may not collect. These agencies may have stronger (more frequent) 

business drivers to keep a National Address Database current for business intelligence and 

services. A workflow and conversion templates will be required for the integration of 

multiple addressing systems as tables in a master database that is part of the National 

Address Database. 
9

NGAC National Address Database Paper – December 2012

5.4.3 Option 3: Modify Existing Processes

The function of address collection currently undertaken by the Census Bureau could be 

transferred or contracted to the Office of the CIO of the Department of Commerce. 

Moving the function of producing a Master Address File (MAF), but not necessarily the 

staff and budget, from under the constraints imposed Title 13 would enable data sharing 

with other agencies. As a case in point, in 2009, NTIA’s State Broadband and Data 

Development (SBDD) Program implemented the Recovery Act and the Broadband Data 

Improvement Act. Currently, many states are funded to develop address data to meet the 

requirements of this program. While NTIA and Census are both located in the Department 

of Commerce, NTIA is funding the development of address data and Census has the data, 

but cannot share it because of Title 13 restrictions. Note that implementing Option 3 may

require statutory changes and/or budget reprogramming, but in this case, reprogramming

would be within a single department.

5.4.4 Option 4: Leverage Existing Programs

The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 directed the establishment of a 

new 4G-based National Public Safety Broadband Network (NPSBN) based on single

national network architecture. NPSBN will provide communication services to first 

responders nationwide. The NPSBN is being developed by FirstNet, a new independent 

authority established within the National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA). 

The two most important locations where NPSBN will need to provide coverage are at 

structures and along transportation corridors. State planning efforts for NPSBN 

implementation, funded in part by NTIA, will need many geospatial data layers to 

prioritize and select service coverage options in building an optimal NPSBN footprint with 

available resources. For this reason, data carried on address points and road centerlines 

are arguably the two most important data layers for evaluating proposed NPSBN build out 

alternatives. In addition, accurate addressing data is critical to the operations of first 

responders. To develop the capabilities needed to successfully build and operate the 

NSPBN, FirstNet could fund the development of a National Address Database as a 

component of the NSPBN – potentially through the State grant program.

5.4.5 Option 5 – State Based Integration and Coordination

Over the past decade the National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC) has 

taken a leadership role in the debate about the best way to collect and distribute address 

data. A 2009 NSGIC report8indicated that 23 states and the District of Columbia have 

coordinated address data at the state level, with 14 of them managing individual address 

points. A subsequent 2011 NSGIC report, Address Points for the Nation; contrasting the 

functions of Address Points and Parcel Maps,

9

lays out a series of steps needed to 

assemble address points. In addition, a recent report commissioned by the Census Bureau,

Researching Address and Spatial Data Digital Exchange and Data Integration,

10 concluded 

that NSGIC was in a strong position to take a leadership role. 

Based on this interest and success, one option is that a state-based association, such as 

NSGIC or the National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO), act as the 

coordinator of a national address point database.
10

NGAC National Address Database Paper – December 2012

5.4.6 Combine Options

While each option is presented separately, it may be that a combination of parts or all of 

several options may create a hybrid option to develop the National Address Database. 

Specifically, a combination of Option 2 and Option 3 may lead to a sustainable process 

that conforms to statutory, privacy and confidentiality concerns, as well as obtain much 

needed funding from an existing source, such as FirstNet, to facilitate the develop of a 

functional National Address Database.

6. Conclusion

A National Address Database will allow stakeholders to access local address resources developed 

and maintained by local data custodians. The creation, management, and support of this 

database should be a Federal priority. Efficiencies and service enhancements from the 

implementation of a National Address Database, as a consolidated national initiative, will 

undoubtedly be vast and attract widespread participation and use by multiple levels of 

government, the public, and private sector.

As part of the FGDC’s current effort to revise and update the OMB Circular A-16 date themes and 

datasets, NGAC suggests that FGDC clearly identify the agency(s) with Federal responsibility for 

addressing issues.

Reconciling data and standardizing database structures within the various areas of government 

will require substantial effort. Furthermore, we recognize that private sector involvement will 

contribute to the complexity. Nevertheless, we believe that private sector engagement should be 

a part of the overall vision for a National Address Database and that the private sector will be a 

future partner of a successful, staged development. Furthermore, when data is put into the public 

domain, it leads to an informed public and creates new opportunities for the private sector. For 

example, vendors providing navigation services will be able to take advantage of the National 

Address Database to develop new products and services for their customers.

A National Address Database should be developed to aggregate and integrate local address data –

to make it comprehensive and seamless at the national level on a regular frequency. This 

database should meet the needs of Federal, state, and local government, as well as provide 

opportunities for new products and services from the private sector. The NGAC believes that a 

National Address Database would provide significant benefits both to citizens and the economy. 

7. Resources

 Census Address Data Guidelines:

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gss/gdlns/addgdln.html

 NSGIC Addressing Resources: 

http://www.nsgic.org/hottopics/addressing_coordination_issues.cfm

 Address Point Work Group: 

https://sites.google.com/site/addresspointworkgroup/home/best-practices-datastructure-models-standards

 Census Bureau Address Ontology, v.11 [Draft]
11

NGAC National Address Database Paper – December 2012

8. Definitions

Address – The street number and street or road name or other designation assigned to a housing 

unit, special place, business establishment, or other structure for purposes of mail delivery and/or 

to enable emergency services, delivery people, and visitors to find the structure.11 For the 

purposes of this report, the term address refers to a point location and includes x, y, (and possibly 

z) coordinates of the address point; where appropriate a distinction is made between situs and 

other point addresses; linear referencing systems are excluded from the current discussion.

Confidentiality – protecting identifiable information from unauthorized disclosure; relates to how 

information is protected after it is collected. Confidentiality details with whom information may 

be shared.

Privacy – respecting individuals’ freedom from unauthorized and unwarranted intrusion into their 

personal information. Privacy is whether or not something pertaining to an individual or group is 

known to others.

Right of Privacy12– the qualified legal right of a person to have reasonable privacy in not having 

his private affairs made known or his likeness exhibited to the public having regard to his habits, 

mode of living, and occupation.

 

1

Federal Geographic Data Committee, “2012 Guidance to the National Geospatial Advisory Committee,”

April 2012. http://www.fgdc.gov/ngac/meetings/april-2012/2012-fgdc-guidance-to-ngac.pdf

2

The National Address Database Subcommittee is comprised of the following NGAC members: Mr. Gene 

Trobia, Co-Chair, Dr. Robert Austin, Co-Chair, Mr. Bert Granberg, Ms. Laurie Kurilla, Dr. Xavier Lopez, Brig. 

Gen. Jack Pellicci, U.S. Army (Ret), Ms. Cynthia Salas, and Ms. Molly Vogt. Mr. John Mahoney (FGDC), Mr. 

Timothy Trainor (U.S. Census Bureau), and Ms. Tricia Gibbons supported the subcommittee in its work.

3

OMB Circular A-130, “Management of Federal Information Resources“ 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/Circulars_a130_a130trans4

4

Bonnell, Clayton, “Postal Service addressing problem,” U.S. Postal Service, e-mail sent to representatives of 

GITA, NENA, NSGIC, and URISA on December 3, 2007

5

The Streamlined Sales and Use Tax agreement involves a majority of the States; see 

http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/ 

6

Title 13, U.S. Code describes the roles and responsibilities of the U.S. Census Bureau.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/title_13.shtml

7

Title 39, U.S. Code describes the roles and responsibilities of the U.S. Postal Service. 

http://uscode.house.gov/download/title_39.shtml

8

National States Geographic Information Council 2009 State Summary

9

http://nsgic.org/public_resources/Address_Points_FTN_Brochure_050311_Final.pdf

10 U.S. Census Bureau, “Researching Address and Spatial Data Digital Exchange and Data Integration”

http://www2.census.gov/geo/research/GSS%20Initiative%20Digital%20Exchange%20ACCEPTED.pdf

11 U.S Census Bureau Website, Decennial Management Division Glossary, address; see 

http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/glossary.html

12 Merriam Webster On-line Dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary