Federal User Requirements Workshop

February 21, 2017 - Washington, DC

U.S. Department of Transportation 
[This page intentionally left blank]
Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 

Approval Signature

Document Log

Document Title: National Address Database Federal User Requirements 

Workshop Final Report

Baseline Document Date: January 19, 2018

Document Tier Program

Document Author Matt Zimolzak, Address Dataset Manager, Geography Division

Critical Reviewer(s)

Deirdre Dalpiaz Bishop, Geography Division Chief

Steve Lewis, Chief Geographic Information Officer, U.S. 

Department of Transportation

Monique Eleby, GEO Assistant Division Chief, Geographic 

Program Management & External Engagement

Lynda Liptrap, Chief, Federal Geographic Coordination Branch

Sensitivity Assessment

This document does not contain any:

 Title 5, Title 13, Title 26, or Title 42 protected information

 Procurement information

 Budgetary information

 Personally identifiable information

 
Record of Changes

Document Log

Version History

Version Date Description of Change Approval Authority

V 0.21 12/05/17 Draft of Chapters 2 through 6

V 0.3 12/11/17 Complete initial draft of document

V 0.4 12/13/17 Incorporated Monique Eleby’s 

initial draft comments

Monique Eleby, ADC, 

GEO

V 0.5 12/14/17 Incorporated Monique Eleby’s 

comments on second draft

Monique Eleby, ADC, 

GEO

V 0.6 12/20/17 Incorporated Steve Lewis’s 

comments on second draft

Monique Eleby, ADC, 

GEO

V 0.7 12/21/17 Partially incorporated Deirdre 

Bishop’s comments on second draft

V 0.71 01/03/18 Completed incorporating Deirdre 

Bishop’s comments on second draft

Deirdre Bishop, Chief, 

GEO

V 0.75 01/03/18 Incorporated Lynda Liptrap’s 

comments on second draft

Monique Eleby, ADC, 

GEO

V 0.9 01/11/18 Incorporated Deirdre Bishop’s final 

comments

Deirdre Bishop, Chief, 

GEO

V 1.0 01/19/18 Document baselined Deirdre Bishop, Chief, 

GEO
Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 

Table of Contents

Table of Contents 

Record of Changes ..................................................................................4

1. Executive Summary ........................................................................6

2. Introduction...................................................................................11

3. Workshop Methodology ...............................................................13

4. Workshop Breakout Sessions ......................................................18

5. Workshop Breakout Session Conclusions..................................24

6. Recommendations.........................................................................26

7. Next Steps.......................................................................................28

8. Contributors ..................................................................................29

Attachment A: Data Dictionary...........................................................30

Attachment B: Acronyms.....................................................................33

Attachment C: Workshop Meeting Agenda.......................................35

Attachment D: Workshop Attendees..................................................37

Attachment E: Pre-Workshop Questionnaire....................................40

Attachment F: Pre-Workshop Questionnaire Summary and 

Weighted Summary Results.................................................................48

Attachment G: Analysis of Questionnaire Results............................50
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 6

1. Executive Summary

In August 2016, the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Steering Committee, in 

concurrence with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), approved the creation of a 

National Geospatial Data Asset (NGDA) Address Theme. The Address Theme was added to the 

existing National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) OMB Circular A-16 data portfolio. The 

Department of Transportation (DOT) and the U.S. Census Bureau were charged to co-manage 

the Address Theme and prioritize the development of a National Address Database (NAD): a 

consolidated public database of each address in the United States with its geospatial location. 

All levels of government and particularly federal agencies need a NAD. Currently, multiple 

federal agencies maintain separate address lists, often through annual purchases of address data, 

and these data are not available to share with other agencies or the public. A NAD of 

authoritative spatially referenced address points from state and local governments would allow 

agencies to cease their duplicative address data activity and simply download up-to-date data 

from the consolidated database.

While work has been done to document federal agency use cases, as in the National Geospatial 

Advisory Committee (NGAC) Use Case Report,

1

the Census Bureau recognized a need to 

identify federal agency requirements for the NAD. In response, the Census Bureau and the DOT 

conducted a one day NAD Federal User Requirements workshop at the DOT in February 2017. 

The goal of the workshop was to capture federal agencies’ requirements for NAD content, 

metadata, and database function. 

The workshop team invited federal agency representatives from the FGDC Address 

Subcommittee to attend the workshop, along with tribal, state, local, and private industry 

members. Federal agency viewpoints were targeted, but as data providers, the tribal, state, local, 

and private company perspectives were of interest in part to serve as a reality check for the 

potential of data providers to meet the stated requirements. 

Federal agencies were asked to respond to a pre-workshop questionnaire to help organizers better 

understand how the agencies use point address data. The questionnaire stated that agencies were 

to assume that the NAD would consist of the minimum content identified by state data providers 

as part of the DOT NAD Pilot. Agencies were asked to identify content and metadata 

requirements that were above and beyond the NAD Pilot minimum content. The responses to the 

questionnaires helped inform the workshop presentations, which in turn helped prepare the 

attendees for detailed requirements discussion and identification during the breakout sessions.

 

1 https://www.fgdc.gov/ngac/meetings/december-2014/ngac-national-address-database-use-case-paper-december2014.pdf
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report 

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 7

A summary of the results of the pre-workshop questionnaire are included in Attachment G of this 

report. 

The workshop consisted of overview presentations, a discussion on the goals of the workshop, 

breakout sessions to gather requirements, and presentations on the requirements captured and the 

next steps. The purpose of the morning presentations was to provide attendees with a basic 

understanding of the background and current activities pertaining to the Address Theme and 

NAD in addition to a summary of the results of the pre-workshop questionnaire. The workshop 

started with a presentation by the Census Bureau on the FGDC theme management process, 

relating it to managing a dataset such as the NAD, and noting that the DOT NAD Pilot minimum 

content was aligned with the Census Bureau’s Geographic Support System minimum content 

guidelines. This was followed by a presentation by DOT on the NAD background. The Census 

Bureau then presented the results of the pre-workshop questionnaire. Prior to splitting out into 

the breakout session groups, attendees were reminded that the purpose of the workshop was to 

identify content and metadata requirements that were in addition to those already captured as 

minimum content from the DOT NAD Pilot and functional requirements for the NAD.

The three facilitated breakout sessions were the focus of the workshop and were designed to 

capture content requirements, metadata requirements, and functional requirements for the NAD. 

Attendees joined one of the three discussion groups and were asked to identify requirements for 

the NAD that were in addition to the DOT NAD Pilot minimum content and prioritize them in 

order of importance.

The workshop attendees then reconvened as one group to summarize their breakout discussions 

and present their list of requirements. Overall, agencies noted that the DOT NAD Pilot 

minimum content met their core needs for address data. In addition, there was wide agreement 

that the NAD needs some indicator of quality at the address record level. It was also noted that 

the first step toward reaching that goal was to, in the short term, identify a common data 

aggregation workflow and best practices. In the longer term, maintenance workflows need to be 

established for the NAD in order to shift from annual wholesale data uploads to flow-based 

transactional data record updates. Unique IDs for address records were also recognized as a 

common need, primarily to support address data workflows and NAD maintenance, but also to 

accommodate linkages to other data sets such as parcels, building footprints, and infrastructure 

points (e.g., fire hydrants, manholes, etc.)

The NAD federal users identified the following additional high-level requirements: 

 Overall workflow

o Maintenance

 Quality
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 8

 Unique IDs

 Linkages to other datasets

o Infrastructure points (manholes, fire hydrants) 

o Building footprints, parcels, etc.

The following content requirements were identified:

 NAD Pilot minimum content met the needs of other Federal agencies 

 Top five additional content needs

o Alternate street names

o Unit type

o Postal City/State abbreviation

o Multi-unit structure flag

o Geocode confidence and accuracy

The following metadata requirements were identified:

 NAD Pilot minimum metadata content met some needs of other Federal agencies 

 Top five additional metadata needs

o Address coordinate reference system

o Coordinate reference system authority

o Indicator of quality 

o Unique IDs

o Address lifecycle
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report 

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 9

The following additional functional requirements were identified:

 Bulk download serves 90 percent of agencies needs

 Functionality beyond tools on Geospatial Platform would be useful

 Top five functional needs:

o Feedback mechanisms

 Error correction

 Functionality development

o Download tools such as subset download and queuing

o Anytime access via cloud

o Batch geocoding service

o Ability to feed updates to classified systems

In summary, the NAD Federal User Requirements workshop was a successful event. There was 

good representation from federal agencies and the initial feedback from workshop participants 

was very positive. Federal agencies identified high level requirements for the NAD that were in 

addition to the minimum content guidelines as specified by the DOT NAD Pilot. 

As a result, the Census Bureau and DOT recommend the following to further develop the NAD 

to meet federal agency address needs: 

 Establish working groups of the Address Subcommittee to study and provide 

recommendations on: 1) address data aggregation workflow and 2) address data content 

(including metadata)

 Use workshop information as the basis to conduct more agency-specific requirements 

gathering 

 Identify milestones and goals for the development of the NAD, acknowledging that NAD 

development is currently constrained by the lack of funding which will negatively impact 

achieving milestones and goals
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 10

The Address Theme in general, and the NAD specifically, represents a significant opportunity 

for federal agencies to contribute toward building a nationwide address resource that will help 

support critical mission needs, with the potential for substantial cost savings through leveraging 

the existing investments of tribal, state, county and local government in address data. 

A single, nationwide address database in a consistent, documented format has tremendous 

potential for simplifying federal agency address data operations, while supporting their address 

data use cases in a significantly more efficient manner than is the case currently. The workshop 

was the start of larger engagement in the Address Theme and development of the NAD.
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report 

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 11

2. Introduction

The Census Bureau and DOT co-lead the FGDC Address Theme and strongly advocate for the 

development of a NAD. This partnership recently organized a workshop to involve specific 

members of the address data user community to determine federal requirements for a national 

level address dataset.

This cooperative effort began shortly after the formation of the Address Theme by the FGDC’s 

Steering Committee in August 2016. Prior to this date, the DOT completed their work on a 

NAD Pilot Project, the initial exploratory effort at building a consolidated public database of 

address data from six states (Arizona, Arkansas, New Jersey, Ohio, Utah and Virginia), Boone 

County Missouri, representing a consortium of 9 Missouri counties, and the District of 

Columbia. A detailed report describing this pilot effort was published by the DOT on September 

20, 2016.

2

 This report proposed minimum content guidance based on the relative availability of 

address data attributes described in the NAD Schema from the participants and other potential 

data providers (AppGeo, 2016, pp. 12-13). 

In the early stages of the Address Theme and Subcommittee formation, the Census Bureau 

advocated for stakeholder engagement in the NAD requirements building process to identify as 

many address use cases as possible within federal agencies, as both the National States 

Geographic Information Council (NSGIC) and NGAC had been active in identifying state and 

local government use cases. NSGIC documented a significant number of state and local 

government address resource needs in their Address Business Needs document of 

October 2017 3, and in a more limited way the NGAC Use Case Report documents some high 

level address resource use cases for the State of Arizona, Lexington County, South Carolina, and 

Boone County, Missouri. The Census Bureau placed primary emphasis on federal agency 

requirements to focus on potential duplicative efforts and spending. This primary focus of the 

newly organized Address Subcommittee expanded upon the previous efforts led by the address 

data provider community in conjunction with the NSGIC and DOT. 

The Census Bureau proposed a full-day workshop with a broad section of stakeholders including 

tribal, federal, state, and local governments (primarily representing the address providers’

interests), professional organizations, advocacy groups, and the commercial vendor community.

Prior to the actual workshop held at DOT headquarters in Washington, DC, the Census Bureau

designed and implemented a survey to poll federal agency address data requirements as a

prerequisite to participation in the workshop. Participants responded to a pre-workshop 

 

2 https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/3 NAD Pilot Project Final Report.pdf

3 https://www.nsgic.org/assets/docs/ATdocs/Address_Business_Needs_101714_Final.pdf
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 12

questionnaire (Attachment E) to identify the high level user requirements, and a summary report

of their responses was presented during the workshop. 
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report 

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 13

3. Workshop Methodology 

Workshop invitations were sent to eighty-nine individual stakeholders with forty-four actually 

attending. The departments and agencies of the federal attendees are listed in the table below. A

complete list of the workshop attendees is included in Attachment D. 

Department Agency

Department of Agriculture

Department of Commerce Census Bureau

Department of Education

Department of Health and Human Services

Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development

Department of Interior U.S. Geological Survey

Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation

Department of Transportation Office of the Chief Information Officer

Federal Highway Administration

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration

Department of Veterans Affairs

Independent Agencies

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

General Services Administration

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit

Authority

U.S. Postal Service
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 14

The workshop began with opening remarks from Deirdre Bishop, Chief of Geography Division, 

U.S. Census Bureau, followed by the welcome of the workshop attendees from Steve Lewis, 

Chief Geospatial Information Officer for the U.S. Department of Transportation and host of the 

workshop. This was followed by introductions of DOT and Census Bureau personnel who 

prepared and organized the workshop, the roll call of federal agency and other stakeholder 

workshop attendees, and lastly an overview of the day’s agenda. The session then moved into 

the workshop agenda items. These consisted of overview presentations, a discussion of the goals 

of the workshop, breakout sessions to identify the most important high-level requirements, and 

presentations on the requirements captured and the next steps.

The workshop presentation is available on the FGDC Address Theme home page under NAD 

Federal User Requirements Workshop.

Goals and Objectives

Goal 1: Provide background information on the FGDC Address Theme and NAD effort.

Objectives:

 Describe the FGDC Theme Management Process; and

 Describe the NAD effort to date.

Goal 2: Identify high-level NAD requirements for federal agencies.

Objectives:

 Present the results of the Pre-Workshop Questionnaire;

 Identify the most important high-level requirements in theme based breakout sessions;

and

 Summarize the results of the breakout sessions, announcing the most important highlevel requirements in each breakout session theme.

Goal 3: Identify some next steps to move the NAD effort forward.

Objectives:

 Identify issues and areas for further discussion; and

 Publish a workshop summary report.
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report 

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 15

Pre-Workshop Questionnaire

In order to facilitate a preliminary understanding of federal agency address data user 

requirements, a pre-workshop questionnaire was developed and distributed to perform an initial 

assessment of user needs.

The design of the NAD Federal Agency User Requirements Pre-Workshop Questionnaire 

(Attachment E) was intended to capture responses to develop an understating of current and 

future address data needs of federal agencies in several different areas, including:

 Address data uses

 Update frequency preference

 Address point location preference

 Address type preferences

 Relative importance of specific address data content 

 Relative importance of specific address data metadata content 

 Relative importance of specific address data interface functionality

In preparation for the NAD Federal User Requirements Workshop the Pre-Workshop

Questionnaire responses were analyzed and presented to the workshop attendees. This provided 

initial insight into federal agency address data needs, and prepared workshop attendees to discuss 

requirements in more focused detail during the breakout sessions.

The updated Pre-Workshop Questionnaire results and analysis is included in Attachment G of 

this report.

NAD Background

Participants were initially presented with the DOT NAD Pilot goals, including:

 Determining minimum content guidelines

 Exploring address workflows

 Understanding best practices for address aggregation

 Assessing technical feasibility

 Preserving accessibility, keeping the NAD in the public domain
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 16

Next, a description of how the NAD Pilot participant and volunteer data was integral to the 

development of the NAD Pilot Minimum Content Guidelines, as described in detail in the NAD 

Pilot Project Findings Report (AppGeo, 2016, p. 13). A detailed description of the 

recommended NAD Pilot Minimum Content Guidelines is included in the table below.

Address Components Geographic Location Address Metadata

Address Number Latitude/Longitude 

Coordinate Address Authority

Street Name National Grid Coordinate Address Source

Subaddress Address Date

City/Town/Place Unique ID

County Address Type

State Address Placement

ZIP Code

Additional explanation was provided for address authority, the owner of the address, address 

source, the provider of the address, address type, a description of the primary human activity at 

the address (e.g., residential, commercial, government/public) and address placement (e.g., 

rooftop, driveway, parcel centroid, etc.)

Geographic Support System (GSS) Background

The Geographic Support System (GSS) is an integrated program that supports the Census 

Bureau’s mission by improving address coverage, continuous updating of spatial features, and 

enhancing the quality assessments and measurements of the Master Address File/Topologically 

Integrated Geocoding and Referencing System (MAF/TIGER) database. 

As part of the ongoing development of the GSS, the Census Bureau held an Address Summit in 

2011. A key part of the work at the Address Summit was the development of the GSS Address 

Submission Guidelines in two forms, optimal and minimum.

4

 Census GSS Optimal Submission 

Guidelines were substantial input into the design of the NAD Federal Agency User 

 

4 https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/gssi/Address_Data_Submission_Guidelines_v1.1.pdf
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report 

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 17

Requirements Pre-Workshop Questionnaire, specifically the questions on additional address 

content.

The table below displays the comparison of Census GSS Minimum Address Data Submission 

and NAD Pilot Project Minimum Content Guidelines, displaying a high degree of alignment.

NAD Minimum Content 

Guidelines Alignment Census Minimum Address Data Submission Guidelines

All Required

Address Number Align Address Number

Street Name Align Street Name

And One Required

Subaddress No Compliment

City/Town/Place No Compliment

Postal Community Name

Align Postal City and State State

County No Compliment

ZIP Code Align ZIP Code

Latitude/Longitude 

Coordinate Align Address Coordinate

National Grid Coordinate No Compliment

No Compliment

2010 Census Tabulation 

State, County, Tract and 

Block
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 18

4. Workshop Breakout Sessions

Breakout Session Background

Workshop participants were divided into groups focused on three distinct requirements areas, 

content, metadata and functional. Efforts were made to include a broad section of stakeholders 

in each focus group, including splitting up personnel attending from the same agency or 

organization among two (or more) of the focus groups. Stakeholders discussed the pros and cons 

of specific additional requirements in each area, and then ranked them in order of preference. 

The following are the results and recommendations from each of the workshop breakout 

sessions.

Content Requirements Breakout Session

The Content Requirements breakout session group was tasked with assessing and prioritizing a 

list of address data attributes identified in the pre-workshop questionnaire as being potential 

additions to the NAD schema, and proposing any additional attributes that were desirable but 

were not captured in the survey results. The following are the highlights of the ensuing debate 

and discussion. 

Requirements for the content to be included in the NAD should be minimal, focusing on the 

basic elements and attributes of an address. The NAD should not include everything that a local 

database or state requires for their particular circumstances or needs. There was general 

agreement that the existing NAD schema accommodates the majority of the basic elements and 

attributes, and that those are the attributes most likely to be maintained (available) at all levels of 

government. However, it was recognized that not all of the attributes included in the schema 

would be maintained currently (or consistently) by all potential contributors, therefore it is 

important to note that initial contributions to the NAD need not include every element in the 

schema, as these may be populated over time. Attributes that can be derived via joins to 

ancillary datasets should need not be included in the NAD. For instance, census geography and 

congressional districts change over time, and could easily be obtained via data linkage instead of 

direct inclusion. Lastly, while Alternate Street Names are a highly desirable element, their 

inclusion may require a more complex data model than is currently being proposed.

It will be important to know how the coordinates for the address point were derived. 

Subcommittee members suggested that contributors to the NAD select from a “pick list” of 

Geocoding Confidence Indicators to identify how the geocode was derived (i.e., Building 

centroid, Global Positioning System (GPS), structure rooftop, entrance, unit location, parcel, 

linear geocode, property access point, etc.) Additionally, it was suggested that metadata might 

include the ‘geocoding engine’ (software) used to derive the coordinates. How contributors to 
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report 

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 19

and users of the NAD capture, assess, and use indicators of quality for the address data will need 

to be an ongoing topic for subcommittee discussions. The breakout session specifically, and 

workshop in general, was insufficient to address these topics in the detail they need to be 

addressed in order to support the NAD.

While the following topics were outside the scope of the group, they are worthy of note:

Data aggregation will be an ongoing challenge as there are myriad schemas in use across the 

governmental landscape. While the NAD will generate a Universally Unique Identifier (UUID), 

the propagation of this element back to the contributors (facilitating maintenance of the NAD) 

will be a challenge, and may not be feasible in all cases.

Additionally, ‘Address’ versus ‘Addressable (Dispatchable) Feature’ concepts will need to be 

addressed. In order to be useful for emergency response purposes, the database may need to 

include features such as channel markers, barns and chicken coops, any location where an 

individual may require emergency assistance.

Lastly, the concept of ‘place name’ will prove challenging as it could encompass postal 

community name, legal jurisdictional names, unincorporated communities, neighborhoods, etc., 

and there is the potential for widespread variance in usage. It may be desirable to join the 

contributions to United States Postal Service data (using ZIP Code) to derive the data for the 

postal names.

At the end of the session, participants were asked to identify the five most important attributes to 

their agencies, based upon the possibility that if these “essential” attributes listed here are not 

included in the NAD schema, their agency would not use this database. The results of the voting 

follow:

Top 5:

 Alternate street names

 Unit Type (residential, commercial, governmental/public)

 Postal City/State Abbreviation

 Multi-Unit Structure Flag

 Geocoding confidence indicator
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 20

Metadata Requirements Breakout Session

The Metadata Requirements breakout group met to consider and prioritize the metadata needs for 

the NAD beyond those already established by NAD Pilot Minimum Content Guidelines.

In general, the group agreed that the Minimum Content Guidelines met their requirements and 

that additional metadata elements were “nice to have” as opposed to “must have.” With that 

foundation established, the group reviewed the pre-workshop questionnaire results and endorsed 

four additional metadata elements.

First, the Address Point Coordinate System, which could include the authorizing organization of 

the coordinate system (e.g., EPSG) or other authority that assigns an address or other identifier. 

This may include the spatial extent of the authority and contact info. Second, an Indicator of 

Quality, a general term for a potentially complex set of tests and procedures. It might include a 

standard set of quality tests with weights assigned to indicate their relative importance. More 

discussion is needed before the Quality Indicator can be fully defined in a way that is useful to 

most users. Third, the Date Address Last Validated, if an address is validated in the field or 

through other research; this information would be an indicator of accuracy. It is worth noting 

that many addresses are never validated, but does not necessarily indicate a problem with the 

address position. Finally, Update Frequency, the frequency that new or corrected addresses for a 

given geographic area are expected to be uploaded into the NAD. Questions to consider when 

defining this item include, what constitutes a “new” address, does a simple ZIP code change 

require a new address date, and what if the address is in area that is annexed and the Place Name 

changes, but nothing else?

The group noted that their primary interest is in record level metadata, with file level metadata 

(i.e., one metadata file for each state or local dataset) being less important but useful. The group 

also emphasized that it is difficult to determine metadata requirements without an understanding 

of the workflow for transferring data in and out of the NAD. For example, to define a field for 

an address source involves tracking a potentially long chain of handoffs from the original 

address authority to the NAD. Another example is establishing a unique ID. There might be an 

address ID assigned by the address authority, as well as a Dataset ID assigned by an intermediate 

aggregator that supplies the address to the NAD. There might also be a unique ID assigned by 

the NAD dataset managers. Determining what address source and IDs should be captured and 

when can only occur after the address workflow is well defined.

The group discussed several additional topics that require more discussion in the future. 

Determining the address type will be challenging because no domain of exhaustive, exclusive 

values can be defined that serves all the use cases for which the NAD will be constructed. Use 

cases such as permitting, police activities, postal delivery, or disaster recovery all require 

different ways of categorizing addresses, so no one domain will work for everyone. When 

defining the address placement field, one address can have multiple placements such as the front 
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report 

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 21

door, public street access point, utility pole in the right of way, others, so a code may have to be 

developed to express multiple placements in a way that is useful to the majority of use cases.

Functional Requirements Breakout Session

The Functional Requirements breakout group met to consider and prioritize the functional needs 

for the NAD. Unique to the task of the breakout groups, this group did not have a set of basic 

requirements or recommendations originating from the NAD Pilot Findings Final Report, only 

the basic requirement of a Web Mapping Service (WMS) as prescribed by the FGDC National 

Geospatial Data Asset (NGDA) Management Plan requirements. 

First, a clear and distinct line between access to NAD data in the form of a download service 

being paramount over any other functionality considerations was expressed by several of the 

group. Next, group members were asked to consider the functionality offered by the Geospatial 

Platform. Along these lines of discussion, there was unanimous concurrence that developing 

functionality beyond the basic interface tools available on the Geospatial Platform would be 

useful and would support some mission needs without having to develop the functionality locally 

at the agency level. However, this did not supplant the primary “requirement” to gain access to 

the data, especially among the federal agencies expressing this desire strongly.

Before delving into additional desirable functional requirements for the NAD, the topic of 

feedback mechanisms was raised to this group. The need to provide feedback on address data 

being ingested into the NAD to the providing entities, concerning any potential or actual errors 

discovered in the provided address data. This includes but is not limited to:

 An unreadable or incorrectly formatted dataset

 Address records that do not meet the NAD Schema Minimum Content Standard

 Address records without spatial coordinates (subset of minimum content)

 Address data that does not meet a recognized domain of values, for appropriate data 

variables

 Address records whose location exceeds the providing entity’s boundary by a significant 

distance (geographic location sanity check)

The group was informed that feedback had been a significant topic at the 2015 National Address 

Database Summit, and was widely supported by the attendees at that event. The Functional 

Requirements Breakout Session group discussed the need for feedback and some of the details 

per the above, but unanimously agreed that feedback is necessary to the NAD enterprise, 

especially in terms of supporting long term maintenance of the NAD. However, there were 

additional aspects of feedback that the breakout group considered and added to the requirements; 

this is described later in this section.
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 22

Other functional requirements that emerged as the most desirable from the breakout session 

include the following:

 Download tools

o Geographic subset

 The ability to select a geographic area smaller than the whole NAD or a 

whole state such as standard geographic subdivisions (for The United 

States of America, territories and possessions).

 User defined geographic area, such as a custom polygon.

o Queuing functionality. The ability to serve large datasets through scheduling

and/or resuming downloads taking into account first come, first serve principles. 

 Anytime access via the cloud. Providing high resource availability to users, either 

through basic download access and/or through an application serving the NAD. 

 Batch geocoding service. The ability to input addresses and have the geographic 

locations returned. 

 Updates to classified systems. Ability to feed updates to classified systems, with 

appropriate security measures for potentially restricted NAD content.

Parking Lot Topics

For those discussions that were not directly related to the individual breakout session topics or 

not fully discussed, stakeholders agreed to put these in a parking lot for future discussion. These 

represent important topics and considerations relevant to the NAD enterprise, but in most cases 

are not directly related to the breakout session topics of content, metadata, and functionality.

Development of workflows between all the levels of stakeholders, from address authority to 

various levels of aggregators to final aggregation at the federal level, was raised as an important 

need and topic of future discussion in all three breakout sessions. How data flows up from 

authoritative sources at the local level to the national level is a major consideration for data 

aggregators. There are a variety of schemas in place from the local level to the national level 

(e.g., existing address datasets such as the MAF, the proposed NAD schema, others), but locals 

use their own schemas which work best for their needs. Local requirements are slow to change. 

Best practices for the NAD involve coordination at the state and national level, in which states 

will continue to take on the role of the aggregator for local and county-level data for the NAD. 

Not all data collected at the local level will be necessary for the NAD. 

Stakeholders expressed the desire to develop some guidelines and documentation to support 

implementation of workflows, with particular emphasis on how this would be used to support 

NAD maintenance. In addition to this larger topic, stakeholders in all three breakout sessions 

emphasized the need to implement the concept of unique ID for address records primarily for the 
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report 

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 23

purpose of supporting address workflows and maintenance. An important aspect of unique ID 

that was left to future discussions was whether a single unique ID could be implemented at all 

stakeholder levels, or if unique ID needs to be implemented distinctly at each level of address 

data aggregation.

Stakeholders in the Content and Metadata breakout sessions identified the need for additional 

discussions on the topic of representing quality in the NAD. In the Content breakout group, 

quality discussion moved towards the concept of quality indicators. How contributors and users 

of the NAD capture, assess, and use indicators of quality for the address record will be an 

ongoing topic for subcommittee discussions. For example, users can assign different confidence 

levels of quality for individual address points, attributes, or geocodes based on their own needs 

and how the addresses were derived. In the Metadata breakout group, the concept of metadata 

being intrinsic to an understanding of quality was emphasized. Additionally, how quality could 

be linked to specifically included NAD minimum content for metadata and/or recommended 

metadata content items emerging from the breakout session. Lastly, potentially develop a series 

of specific tests each with a weighted value, to either determine a quality score for an address 

record individually or address data from a provider collectively, or both. This last suggestion is 

an advanced approach to determining quality, in need of substantial discussion and development 

prior to implementation.

Linkages to other datasets, especially those that are address related or have addressable objects, 

was suggested as an important future topic of discussion. This was raised in both the Content 

and Metadata breakout session groups. A desire to include spatially related record IDs from 

other related enterprise datasets, such as Parcel Identification Numbers (PINs) from tax parcel 

datasets and unique IDs from building footprint datasets are the obvious and most closely related 

spatial datasets to consider. However, the potential inclusion of infrastructure objects that are 

addressable, such as manholes, fire hydrants, telephone poles and others was also raised for 

future consideration.
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 24

5. Workshop Breakout Session Conclusions 

The workshop attendees then reconvened as one group to summarize their breakout discussions 

and present their list of requirements. Overall, agencies noted that the DOT NAD Pilot 

minimum content met their core needs for address data. In addition, there was wide agreement 

that the NAD needs some indicator of quality at the address record level. It was also noted that 

the first step toward reaching that goal was to, in the short term, identify a common data 

aggregation workflow and best practices. In the longer term, maintenance workflows need to be 

established for the NAD in order to shift from annual wholesale data uploads to flow-based 

transactional data record updates. Unique IDs for address records were also recognized as a 

common need, primarily to support address data workflows and NAD maintenance, but also to 

accommodate linkages to other data sets such as parcels, building footprints, and infrastructure 

points (fire hydrants, manholes, etc.)

The breakout session summaries ended with a brief discussion of some preliminary conclusions, 

followed by a more lengthy consideration of the workshop details and results by the FGDC 

Address Theme Team (FGDC ATT).

 Federal agencies identified additional requirements for a NAD, beyond the NAD Pilot 

Minimum Content Guidelines.

 The NAD Pilot Minimum Content Guidelines currently meet many of the address needs 

of many of the responding federal agencies.

 Stakeholders recognized the interconnectedness of the three breakout session 

requirements topics, which limited their ability to come to full conclusions or consensus 

on a number of specific requirements and requirement topics.

 There is substantial room and significant need to discuss and develop additional 

metadata content for the NAD.

 Stakeholders expressed a significant desire to quantify quality about the NAD, and the 

link to metadata being the primary way to enable this was recognized.

 Feedback from address aggregators to address providers was recognized as a critical 

need, supporting NAD quality and maintenance.

 Address data providers may not currently collect all of the data attribution desired by 

federal agency stakeholders.

 The need to utilize universally unique IDs for address records in the NAD and precursor 

input datasets emerged with strong consensus, and the link to unique ID being necessary 

to enable workflows and maintenance activities is recognized.

 Inclusion of alternate street names in the NAD has strong support among federal 

agencies and stakeholders in general.
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report 

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 25

 Understanding what the address represents in terms of its architectural classification and 

function (e.g., single family home, apartment, trailer, duplex, etc.) has strong support 

among federal agencies and stakeholders in general.

 There may be some misunderstanding among some federal agency stakeholders as to the 

close relationship between ZIP Code and Postal City and State, based on the inconsistent 

response data from related questions on the NAD Federal Agency Requirements PreWorkshop Questionnaire.

 There is significant desire among stakeholders to gain access to the NAD as soon as 

possible, and particularly among certain federal agencies.

 Stakeholders desire on demand access to the NAD, with limited or no access downtime.
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 26

6. Recommendations

Recommendation 1: The FGDC ATT should author and publish a report of the NAD 

Federal User Requirements Workshop presentations, pre-workshop questionnaire analysis, 

breakout session discussions, findings and recommendations.

Rationale: A report describing the details of the NAD Federal Agency User Requirements 

Workshop activities, including the analysis of the pre-workshop questionnaire and breakout 

session findings will serve as foundation for additional discussions and requirement development 

for the NAD. The report and its findings can be used to guide discussions that are more detailed 

on these topics in other forums, for both federal agency and other stakeholders.

Recommendation 2: The FGDC ATT should continue discussions on NAD content and 

functionality at monthly Address Subcommittee meetings.

Rationale: The FGDC Address Theme, Address Subcommittee meeting is the appropriate forum 

to continue discussions on the NAD and related address topics. The Address Subcommittee has 

substantial federal agency participation as well as state, county and professional organization 

participation, representing a broad set of interests and expertise beneficial to development of the 

NAD, including the interests of the address providers.

Recommendation 3: The FGDC ATT should establish specific NAD topic based subgroups, 

comprised of a smaller number of individuals representing diverse interests and 

experience, to address NAD topics in detail and make recommendations to the full Address 

Subcommittee.

Rationale: It is clear from the developments at the NAD Federal Agency Requirements 

Workshop that there are many lingering issues regarding NAD content and functionality that 

require additional discussion and resolution. Additionally, new NAD related topics such as 

quality, workflow and maintenance were only raised in a limited way at the workshop and 

require more detailed investigation and discussion. Since it is impractical to gather a large group 

of stakeholders on a frequent basis for workshops, or even the somewhat smaller regularly 

attending membership of the Address Subcommittee to address these multiple topics, a smaller 

group of individuals with diverse interests and expertise can focus on topics narrowly and make 

more rapid progress than larger groups of stakeholders. The entire Address Committee can 

provide periodic guidance to established subgroups, and can adopt, modify or reject 

recommendations from subgroups through established subcommittee bylaws. 
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report 

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 27

Recommendation 4: Evaluate the DOT NAD Pilot data to determine if the minimum 

content guidelines were met.

Rationale: It is important to evaluate the DOT NAD Pilot data to determine if the initial 

submissions from data providers meet the minimum content guidelines, both to determine if 

providers are capable of meeting this minimum standard as well as the potential usability of the 

address data in the NAD Pilot to users.

Recommendation 5: Identify milestones and goals for the development of the NAD. 

Rationale: Identifying goals and milestones, through the Address Theme Strategic Plan and 

Theme Implementation Plan, will both help move the NAD effort forward and measure progress 

at specified points to determine how well the effort is doing to reach its goals. One notable 

constraint in reaching milestones and meeting goals is the current lack of funding for the 

initiative, which will negatively affect achieving the goals

Recommendation 6: Broaden requirements gathering beyond federal agencies to tribal, 

state, county and municipal governments.

Rationale: Federal agencies responded to a survey to rank core attributes for the NAD. While 

several state representatives participated in the workshop and are on the Address Subcommittee, 

dialog between states and their county, municipal, and township partners on these core attributes 

will add to the value of the NAD. The same applies to tribal interests. The FGDC Address 

Subcommittee should promote this dialog, and feature state programs that access and leverage 

this database.
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 28

7. Next Steps

The following are some important next steps for the FGDC ATT to address the 

recommendations.

 Call for federal agency and other stakeholder member participation on subgroups at a 

future Address Theme Subcommittee meeting. These should initially include but are not 

limited to Address Workflow, NAD Content, NAD Metadata and Quality. The Address 

Workflow subgroup has since been formed and is addressing its topic.

 Conceive of and implement Quality Assurance procedures and individual Quality Control 

tests to assess the quality of the NAD. This has been initially implemented by DOT and 

its contractor to asses the following:

o Address records have a spatial location, and are in or near the providing entity

o Address records meet NAD Minimum Content Guidelines

o Address records are consistent with a recognized domain of values for specified 

data variables, with some expansion of valid domain values based on experience

If minimum standards are not being met then DOT should develop a method of 

communicating feedback to the providers to help them address the errors (since 

implemented), or determine if some providers are not capable of meeting the minimum 

standards and further evaluate them in the Address Subcommittee. If minimum standards 

are being met, then DOT can start taking steps to release the data publicly, so users can 

benefit from it.

 Develop a list of NAD goals, and tie them to specific milestones in a high level schedule

in the Address Theme Strategic Plan and Theme Implementation Plan.

 Ask state participants on the Address Subcommittee to share their experiences working 

with tribal, county, municipal, and township partners in building their statewide address 

databases. Specifically, what address data elements local government maintains and any 

differences with what states are requesting to meet their address use cases.

 Call for federal agency, commercial vendor and other interested stakeholders to conduct 

their own independent evaluations of the NAD to determine if it meets minimum 

standards and other user needs. Several entities have already done this and provided their 

feedback to DOT and Census, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and 

commercial vendors TomTom and Digital Map Products.
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report 

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 29

8. Contributors

Deirdre Bishop (U.S. Census Bureau, Division Chief, Geography Division)

Monique Eleby (U.S. Census Bureau, Assistant Division Chief for Program Management and 

External Engagement, Geography Division)

Tim Trainor (U.S. Census Bureau, Chief Geospatial Scientist)

Lynda Liptrap (US Census Bureau, Geography Division)

Matt Zimolzak (U.S. Census Bureau, Geography Division)

Mark Lange (U.S. Census Bureau, Geography Division)

Deirdre Bevington-Attardi (U.S. Census Bureau, Geography Division)

Karen Poole (U.S. Census Bureau, Customer Liaison and Marketing Service Office) 

Stuart Irby (U.S. Census Bureau, Geography Division)

Steve Lewis (Chief Geographic Information Officer, US Department of Transportation)

 
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 30

Attachment A: Data Dictionary 

Term Definition 

Address Theme The Address Theme consists of the data elements, 

attributes, and metadata that specify a fixed 

geographic location by reference to a 

thoroughfare or landmark, or specifies a point of 

postal delivery, or both. The address theme does 

not include occupants or addressees nor does it 

include the features (e.g., parcels, building 

footprints, etc.) that may be specified by an 

address. The theme may include linkages 

between these features and other location 

reference methods.

Address Subcommittee The primary objective of the Address 

Subcommittee is to support the National Spatial 

Data Infrastructure through coordination among 

tribal, federal, state, and local programs and 

interested commercial vendors to make spatially 

referenced national address data freely available.

Basic Street Address The Census Bureau defines a basic street address 

as the address (i.e., structure number and street 

name) for a multi-unit structure, such as an 

apartment building, without the unit designations 

(e.g., apartment number, unit number, etc.) of the 

associated units at that multi-unit structure. For 

example, apartments at an apartment building 

share the same basic street address (typically) and 

are distinguished uniquely by their unit 

designations.

Public Land Survey System The Public Land Survey System (PLSS) is used 

to divide public domain lands, which are lands 

owned by the Federal government for the benefit 

of the citizens of the United States. It 

encompasses major portions of the land area of 30 

southern and western States. Since the original 

PLSS surveys were completed, much of the land 
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report 

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 31

that was originally part of the public domain has 

been transferred to private ownership and in some 

areas the PLSS has been extended, following 

similar rules of division, into non-public domain 

areas. The PLSS typically divides land into 6-

mile-square townships, which is the level of 

information included in the National Atlas. 

Townships are subdivided into 36 one-mile

square sections. Sections can be further 

subdivided into quarter sections, quarter-quarter 

sections, or irregular government lots (ex., N 1/2 

SE 1/4 SW 1/4, S24, T32N, R18E). 

Web Feature Service (WFS) A Web Feature Service Interface Standard (WFS) 

provides an interface allowing requests for 

geographical features across the web using 

platform-independent calls.

Web Map Service (WMS) A Web Map Service Interface Standard (WMS) is 

a standard protocol for serving (over the Internet) 

georeferenced map images which a map server 

generates using data from a GIS database.

Alternate Street Name Other names that differ from the primary street 

name for the same linear extent of a street or road 

feature. These can be honorary or ceremonial in 

nature, or officially recognized as another valid 

name for the street or road.

City style address Housing unit and group quarter addresses that 

have an address number and street name address, 

for example, 212 Elm Street or 137 Clark Ct., 

Apt. 316. These addresses are used for mailing 

and/or to provide locations for emergency 

services, such as police, fire, and rescue (E911 

addresses).

Non-city style address Addresses that do not include a house number 

and/or a street name are noncity style addresses. 

Frequently used noncity style mailing addresses 

include Rural Route and Box Number, Highway 

contract route and Box Number, and Post Office 

Box addresses. These types of addresses are not 

typically geocodable.
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 32

Facility The Census Bureau defines facility as a 

commercial, residential, or institutional building 

or complex encompassing one or more structures, 

such as a college or university, nursing home, 

hospital, prison, hotel, migrant or seasonal farm 

worker camp, or military installation or ship. 

Facility examples include The University of 

Massachusetts, Scott Air Force Base and Folsom 

State Prison.

Group Quarters The Census Bureau classifies all people not living 

in housing units (house, apartment, mobile home, 

rented rooms) as living in group quarters. There 

are two types of group quarters: Institutional, 

such as correctional facilities, nursing homes or 

mental hospitals, and Non-Institutional, such as 

college dormitories, military barracks, group 

homes, missions or shelters.
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report 

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 33

Attachment B: Acronyms 

Acronym Meaning 

BSA Basic Street Address

CFPB Consumer Financial Protection Board 

DOE Department of Energy 

DOT Department of Transportation

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee

FGDC ATT Federal Geographic Data Committee Address 

Theme Team

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

GEO Geography Division

GIS Geographic Information System

GPS Global Positioning System

GSA General Services Administration

GSS Geographic Support System 

HHS Health and Human Services 

HUD Housing and Urban Development

IHS Indian Health Service

LRS Location Referencing System

MAF Census Bureau Master Address File 

MTdb MAF/TIGER Database
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 34

NAD National Address Database

NCES National Center for Education Statistics

NGDA National Geospatial Data Asset

NSGIC National States Geographic Information Council 

PIN Parcel Identification Number

PLSS Public Land Survey System

SSA Social Security Administration

TIGER Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding 

System 

USPS United States Postal Service 

UUID Universally Unique ID

VA Veterans Administration 

WFS Web Feature Service

WMS Web Mapping Service

ZIP Zone Improvement Program
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report 

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 35

Attachment C: Workshop Meeting Agenda

National Address Database (NAD) Federal User Requirements Gathering Session Agenda

February 21, 2017 - 9am to 3pm

I. Introduction (25 min.)

a. Welcome/Purpose of the day

b. Introduction of participants/Agency role call

II. Theme Management Process (10 min.)

a. Roles & Responsibilities

b. Management components and deliverables

III. NAD background (20 min.)

a. Current Status

i. DOT 

1. NAD Pilot – Establish minimum content guidelines

ii. Census 

1. Geographic Support System (GSS Partner Program – minimum 

data content guidelines for addresses)

b. Challenges

i. Funding

ii. Data coverage gaps

IV. Federal Agency User Requirements Pre-Workshop Questionnaire (25 min.)

a. Analysis of Results

10 min. break

V. User requirements gathering – Breakout sessions (90 min.)

a. Content requirements

b. Metadata requirements

c. Functional requirements

LUNCH 12 noon to 1pm

VI. User requirements gathering – Breakout sessions continued (70 min.)

VII. Summary of Breakout sessions (35 min.)

a. Content summary

b. Metadata summary

c. Functional summary
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 36

VIII. Conclusion (15 min.)

a. Next steps

i. Parking Lot

ii. Workshop summary report

b. Closing remarks
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report 

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 37

Attachment D: Workshop Attendees

Florinda Balfour 

Department of Veterans Affairs

Functional Breakout Session Group

Deirdre Bishop

U.S. Census Bureau

Mickey Brierley 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Functional Breakout Session Group

Michael Byrne

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Functional Breakout Session Group

Stephanie Crews-Jones

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Content Breakout Session Group

Aluanda Drain

General Services Administration

Functional Breakout Session Group

Laurie Flaherty

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration

Metadata Breakout Session Group

Adrian Gardner 

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Functional Breakout Session Group

Brian Gardner 

Federal Highway Administration

Metadata Breakout Session Group

Doug Geverdt

Department of Education

Content Breakout Session Group

Ben Gurga 

Department of Health and Human Services

Functional Breakout Session Group

Shirley Hall 

Department of Agriculture

Metadata Breakout Session Group

Joseph Hausman 

Federal Highway Administration

Functional Breakout Session Group

Parrish Henderson 

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Functional Breakout Session Group

Stuart Irby

U.S. Census Bureau

Content Breakout Session Group

David Jackson

City of Washington, District of Columbia

Christian Jacqz

National States Geographic Information 

Council/Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Content Breakout Session Group

Earl Johnson

U.S. Postal Service

Mark Lange

U.S. Census Bureau

Functional Breakout Session Group

Steve Lewis 

Department of Transportation

Functional Breakout Session Group
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 38

Lynda A Liptrap

U.S. Census Bureau

Metadata Breakout Session Group

Eric Litt

Department of Veterans Affairs

Metadata Breakout Session Group

Gita Urban-Mathieux

U.S. Geological Survey 

Functional Breakout Session Group

Dominic Menegus 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Metadata Breakout Session Group

Kenny Miller

National States Geographic Information 

Council

Content Breakout Session Group

Anne Nussear

General Services Administration

Content Breakout Session Group

Ted Payne 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development

Functional Breakout Session Group

Greg Pewett

U.S. Census Bureau

Metadata Breakout Session Group 

(Facilitator)

Karen Poole

U.S. Census Bureau

Content Breakout Session Group 

(Facilitator)

Deborah Rivera-Nieves

U.S. Census Bureau

Functional Breakout Session Group 

(Facilitator)

Tom Roff

Federal Highway Administration

Functional Breakout Session Group

Rob Seay 

Social Security Administration

Metadata Breakout Session Group

Rob Shankman

Department of Health and Human Services

Content Breakout Session Group

John Sperling

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development

Content Breakout Session Group

Tianjia Tang

Federal Highway Administration

Metadata Breakout Session Group

Michael Turner

Applied Geographies

Metadata Breakout Session Group

Lucie Vogel

Indian Health Services

Content Breakout Session Group

Ed Wells

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 

Authority

Metadata Breakout Session Group

Martha Wells

Urban and Regional Information Systems 

Association

Content Breakout Session Group

Daniel Widner

Consultant
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report 

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 39

David Winter

Federal Highway Administration

Content Breakout Session Group

Nate Workman

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Content Breakout Session Group

Patrick Zhang 

Federal Highway Administration

Content Breakout Session Group

Matthew Zimolzak

U.S. Census Bureau

Functional Breakout Session Group

Amy Youmans

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Metadata Breakout Session Group
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 40

Attachment E: Pre-Workshop Questionnaire

National Address Database (NAD) Federal Agency User Requirements 

Pre-Workshop Questionnaire

Your Name: _______________________________________________ ______

Your Department/Agency: ________________________________ _________

Contact Email: ________________________________________ ___________

Contact Phone: _______________________________________ ___________

Please consolidate your response by agency, one response per agency, to aid our compilation 

efforts. Please email the completed questionnaire back to mark.lange@census.gov

I. NAD Uses

Please identify the most important (mission critical) ways your agency would use the 

NAD to support your mission from the list below. Please include any specific examples 

of your agency’s broad uses not listed under “Other.”

 Emergency Response

 Mailing List

 Address Location Verification/Inventory

 Enumeration

 Survey Execution

 Service Delivery

 Delivery Route Optimization

 Facility Management

 Planning

 Decision-Making/Policy Development

 Impact Analysis

 Funding Allocation

 Risk Assessment

 Compliance Notification

 Permit Management and Verification

 Regulatory/Code Enforcement

 Fraud Detection
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report 

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 41

Other: __________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________ 

II. Content Requirements

Background: In preparation for the user requirements workshop, the FGDC Address 

Theme co-leads recommend accepting the NAD Pilot Minimum Content Guidelines as a 

starting point, with a workshop focus on additional content requirements or refining 

requirements from the minimum content guidelines. The guidelines are intended for 

residential, commercial, and governmental structures, but could include other 

addressable objects meeting these minimum content guidelines. For more details on 

the NAD Pilot Minimum Content guidelines and proposed NAD Schema, see the NAD 

Pilot Project Findings Report, pp. 12-13, https://www.fgdc.gov/topics/national-addressdatabase/nad-pilot-project-final-report.pdf 

Additionally, please note that terminology marked with an asterisk is found on the 

definitions pages at the end of this questionnaire.

NAD Content Preferences:

1) Update Frequency: How frequently does your agency require address data be 

updated to meet its mission needs? (select one)

Continuously  Quarterly  Biannually (2 times per year) 

Annually (once a year)  Every 2 years  Every 5 years  

No preference 

2) Address Point Location: Please identify the address point location that is most useful 

to your agency (select one):

Front door only  All doors  Building footprint centroid 

Access point (driveway entrance)  Post office mail receptacle 

Parcel centroid  No preference 
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 42

3) Address Type: What address types does your agency require to meet its mission 

needs? (select all that apply)

Residential  Commercial  Governmental/Public 

Other (please specify): _________________________ 

Requirement

NAD Pilot minimum content guidelines requirements:

 Address Number  Street Name  Subaddress (e.g. Apt. number, etc.) 

 Local Jurisdiction (e.g., city, town, borough, village, township, place)  County

 State  ZIP Code (5-digit)  Latitude/Longitude  National Grid Coordinates

Please rate the following content requirements that are in addition to the DOT NAD 

Pilot Minimum Content Guidelines on their importance to supporting your agency’s 

mission: Essential (must have) - 1, Desirable (highly valuable, but not mandatory) – 2, 

Useful (nice to have) – 3, Not Useful (unneeded) - 4.

Requirement Score: 1 2 3 4

Multi-unit structure flag    

Unit count at basic street address*    

Postal city name and state abbreviation    

Unit type (e.g., SFH*, apartment, duplex, trailer, etc.)    

Census geography (e.g., tract, block)    

Facility*/Group Quarters* name (e.g., UCLA, Hunt Dorm)    

Facility*/Group Quarters*type    

Alternate street name(s)    
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report 

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 43

Non-city style*/mailing only address flag    

Parcel identification number (PIN)    

Building Identifier/Building ID Number    

Transportation Network Identifier/LRS* Key    

Congressional/state legislative districts    

Requirement Score: 1 2 3 4

Public Land Survey System (PLSS)*    

Address use (location, mailing, both)    

Building permit date    

Structure built/occupancy certificate date    

Other address content:

Other content 1    

Other content 2    

Other content 3    

III. Metadata Requirements

Background: The FGDC Address Theme Co-Leads recommend accepting the NAD Pilot 

Minimum Content Guidelines for metadata as a starting point, with a workshop focus on 

additional metadata content requirements and/or refining requirements from the 

minimum content guidelines. More details on the NAD Pilot Minimum Content 

guidelines for metadata can be found in the previously referenced report.

NAD Pilot minimum metadata guidelines requirements:

 Unique ID  Address Type (e.g., residential, commercial, governmental, etc.)
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 44

 Address Placement (e.g., rooftop, structure entrance, driveway entrance, etc.) 

 Address Authority (i.e., data creator)  Address Source (i.e., data aggregator)

 Address date (i.e., date last updated, last validated date, etc.)

Please rate the following additional metadata requirements on their importance to 

supporting your agency’s mission: Essential (must have) - 1, Desirable (highly valuable, 

but not mandatory) – 2, Useful (nice to have) – 3, Not Useful (unneeded) - 4.

Requirement Score: 1 2 3 4

Date address last validated    

Address point coordinate system    

Update frequency    

Indicator of quality    

Other metadata content:

Other metadata 1    

Other metadata 2    

Other metadata 3    

IV. Functional Requirements

At a minimum, Web Mapping Services (WMS)* will be provided per the Federal 

Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) National Geospatial Data Asset (NGDA) 

Management Plan requirements. What other functionality does your agency require 

when interacting with the National Address Database? 

1) What database management model would suit your agency’s needs best? (select 

one)

Centralized  Distributed  No preference 
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report 

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 45

Please rate the following functional requirements on their importance to supporting 

your agency’s mission: Essential (must have) - 1, Desirable (highly valuable, but not 

mandatory) – 2, Useful (nice to have) – 3, Not Useful (unneeded) - 4.

Requirement Score: 1 2 3 4

Anytime access via internet    

Always available/mirror    

Requirement Score: 1 2 3 4

Dataset interoperability (interact with other datasets)    

Web Feature Services (WFS)*    

Spatial files (shapefiles, geodatabase, etc.)    

Application/Interface Tools:

Display tools    

Navigation tools    

Search tools    

Spatial and nonspatial query tools    

Selection tools    

Imagery tools    

Map format tools    

Data tools    

Report tools    

Statistics tools    

Download tools    
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 46

Other functional requirements:

Other functional 1    

Other functional 2    

Other functional 3    

Definitions

Basic street address - The Census Bureau defines a basic street address as the address (i.e., structure 

number and street name) for a multi-unit structure, such as an apartment building, without the unit 

designations (e.g., apartment number, unit number, etc.) of the associated units at that multi-unit 

structure. For example, apartments at an apartment building share the same basic street address 

(typically) and are distinguished uniquely by their unit designations.

City style address - Housing unit and group quarter addresses that have an address number and street 

name address, for example, 212 Elm Street or 137 Clark Ct., Apt. 316. These addresses are used for 

mailing and/or to provide locations for emergency services, such as police, fire, and rescue (E911 

addresses).

Facility - The Census Bureau defines facility as a commercial, residential, or institutional building or 

complex encompassing one or more structures, such as a college or university, nursing home, hospital, 

prison, hotel, migrant or seasonal farm worker camp, or military installation or ship. Facility examples 

include The University of Massachusetts, Scott Air Force Base and Folsom State Prison.

Group Quarters - The Census Bureau classifies all people not living in housing units (house, apartment, 

mobile home, rented rooms) as living in group quarters. There are two types of group quarters: 

Institutional, such as correctional facilities, nursing homes or mental hospitals, and Non-Institutional, 

such as college dormitories, military barracks, group homes, missions or shelters.

LRS - Location Referencing System

Non-city style address - Addresses that do not include a house number and/or a street name are

noncity style addresses. Frequently used noncity style mailing addresses include Rural Route and Box 

Number, Highway contract route and Box Number, and Post Office Box addresses. These types of 

addresses are not typically geocodable.

Public Land Survey System (PLSS) - The PLSS is used to divide public domain lands, which are lands 

owned by the Federal government for the benefit of the citizens of the United States. It encompasses 

major portions of the land area of 30 southern and western States. Since the original PLSS surveys were 
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report 

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 47

completed, much of the land that was originally part of the public domain has been transferred to 

private ownership and in some areas the PLSS has been extended, following similar rules of division, into 

non-public domain areas. The PLSS typically divides land into 6-mile-square townships, which is the 

level of information included in the National Atlas. Townships are subdivided into 36 one-mile- square 

sections. Sections can be further subdivided into quarter sections, quarter-quarter sections, or irregular 

government lots (ex., N 1/2 SE 1/4 SW 1/4, S24, T32N, R18E). 

https://nationalmap.gov/small_scale/a_plss.html#one

SFH - Single family home.

Web Feature Service (WFS) - A Web Feature Service Interface Standard (WFS) provides an interface 

allowing requests for geographical features across the web using platform-independent calls.

Web Map Service (WMS) - A Web Map Service Interface Standard (WMS) is a standard protocol for 

serving (over the Internet) georeferenced map images which a map server generates using data from a 

GIS database.
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 48

Attachment F: Pre-Workshop Questionnaire 

Summary and Weighted Summary Results

NAD Workshop Questionnaire Results

Questions Summary and Weighted Summary Results

Nad Uses (All that apply)

Emergency Response 8

Mailing List 2

Address Verification/Inventory 12

Enumeration 1

Survey Execution 3

Service Delivery 4

Delivery Route Optimization 1

Facility Management 6

Planning 8

Decision-Making/Policy Development 9

Impact Analysis 6

Funding Allocation 4

Risk Assessment 5

Compliance Notification 3

Permit Management and Verification 0

Regulatory/Code Enforcement 0

Fraud Detection 5

Other 1 4

Other 2 0

Other 3 0

Update Frequency (Select one)

Continuously 3

Quarterly 4

Biannually 2

Annually 5

Every 2 years 0

Every 5 year 0

No Preference 0

Address Point Location (Select one)

Front Door Only 3

All Doors 1

Building Footprint Centroid 4

Access Point/Driveway Entrance 1

Post Office Mail Receptacle 1

Parcel Centroid 2

No Preference 2

Address Type (All that apply)

Residential 12

Commercial 12

Governmental/Public 13

Other 1

Additional Content Requirements (Rate 1 to 4)

Postal City and State Abbreviation 31

Multi-Unit Structure Flag 30

Building ID Number 29

Unit Type (SFH, Apt., Trailer) 29

Alternate Street Names 27

Unit Count at BSA 27

Address Use (location, mailing, both) 26

Facility/Group Quarters Type 25

Facility/Group Quarters Name 23

Census Geography 22

Non-city style/Mailing Only Flag 22

Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 21

PLSS 20

Transportation Network ID / LRS Key 19

Congressional/State Legislative Districts 18

Structure Built/Occupancy Certificate Date 18

Building Permit Date 15

Other Content 1 5

Other Content 2 0

Other Content 3 0
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report 

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 49

NAD Workshop Questionnaire Results

Questions Summary and Weighted Summary Results

Additional Metadata Requirements (Rate 1 to 4)

Address Point Coordinate System 37

Indicator of Quality 34

Date Address Last Validated 31

Update Frequency 31

Other Metadata 1 4

Other Metadata 2 4

Other Metadata 3 0

Data Management Model (select one)

Centralized 2

Distributed 5

No Preference 7

Additional Functional Requirements (Rate 1 to 4)

Dataset Interoperability 35

Anytime Access via Internet 34

Always Available/Mirror 33

Download Tools 33

Web Feature Services (WFS) 32

Data Tools 31

Spatial Files (shapefiles, geodatabase) 29

Display Tools 28

Search Tools 28

Selection Tools 28

Spatial and Nonspatial Query Tools 28

Navigation Tools 27

Report Tools 25

Imagery Tools 23

Statistics Tools 23

Map Format Tools 19

Other Functional 1 2

Other Functional 2 0

Other Functional 3 0
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 50

Attachment G: Analysis of Questionnaire Results

The following are graphic representations of the questionnaire results in the form of bar and pie 

charts.

Figure 1

The bar chart in Figure 1 displays the distribution of the ranked NAD Uses from most important 

to least important, according to the responding federal agencies.

The top three include:

• Address Verification/Inventory with twelve responses;

• Decision Making/Policy Development with nine responses;

• Emergency Response and Planning tied with eight responses each.

12

9

8 8

6 6

5 5

4 4 4

3 3

2

1 1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Total

NAD Uses

Address Verification/Inventory

Decision-Making/Policy Development

Emergency Response

Planning

Facility Management

Impact Analysis

Fraud Detection

Risk Assessment

Funding Allocation

Other 1

Service Delivery

Compliance Notification

Survey Execution

Mailing List

Delivery Route Optimization

Enumeration
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report 

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 51

Figure 2

The bar graph in Figure 2 analyzes the responses to the address types needed in the NAD. There 

is strong consensus that federal agencies want all three types of addresses in the NAD, 

governmental/public, residential and commercial.

13

12 12

1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Governmental/Public Residential Commercial Other

Address Type
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 52

Figure 3

For preferred Address Point Location (Figure 3), Building Footprint Centroid was the most 

popular with four responses, followed by Front Door Only with three responses. The top two 

responses had as much support as the remaining five responses had, among responding federal 

agencies.

4

3

2

2

1

1

1

Address Point Location Building Footprint

Centroid

Front Door Only

No Preference

Parcel Centroid

Access

Point/Driveway

Entrance

All Doors

Post Office Mail

Receptacle
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report 

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 53

Figure 4

For NAD Update Frequency (Figure 4), almost half of respondents would be satisfied with 

annual updates, with more than three quarters satisfied with updates that are less than 

continuous.

Figure 5

For preferred Data Management Model (Figure 5), half of respondents expressed no preference.

5

4

3 2

Update Frequency

Annually Quarterly Continuously Biannually

7

5

2

Data Managment Model

No Preference Distributed Centralized
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 54

Additional Content Requirements

The following pie charts describe the distribution of preferences from responding federal 

agencies, for the top six additional NAD content requirements responses.

Figure 6

Figure 7

9

1

2

2

Postal City and State Abbreviation

Essential Desirable Useful Unneeded

6

4

4

Multi-Unit Structure Flag

Essential Desirable Useful Unneeded
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report 

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 55

Figure 8

Figure 9

5

6

1 2

Building ID Number

Essential Desirable Useful Unneeded

7

3

2

2

Unit Type

Essential Desirable Useful Unneeded
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 56

Figure 10

Figure 11

 Postal City and State Abbreviation is ranked first (Figure 6), with almost two thirds of 

respondents rating this as Essential and more than three quarters rating it as Desirable or 

higher. This is an interesting result, as only two Federal agencies selected “Mailing List” 

as a mission critical NAD use;

4

6

3

1

Alternate Street Names

Essential Desirable Useful Unneeded

6

3

3

2

Unit Count at BSA

Essential Desirable Useful Unneeded
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report 

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 57

 Multi-Unit Structure Flag is ranked second (Figure 7), with nearly half rating it as 

Essential, more than two thirds rating it as Desirable or higher and none ranking it as 

Unneeded;

 Building ID Number is tied for third (Figure 8), with more than three quarters of 

respondents rating it as Desirable or higher;

 Unit Type is also tied for third with (Figure 9), half rating it as Essential and more than 

two thirds rating it as Desirable or higher;

 Alternate Street Names is tied for fifth (Figure 10), with more than two thirds rating it as 

Desirable or higher;

 Unit Count at BSA is also tied for fifth (Figure 11), with nearly half rating it as Essential 

and almost two thirds rating it as Desirable or higher.

Additional Metadata Requirements

There are only four additional metadata requirements that were specified on the NAD PreWorkshop Questionnaire: Address Point Coordinate System, Indicator of Quality, Date Address 

Last Validated and Update Frequency. All of these were overwhelmingly supported by 

responding federal agencies with mostly high ratings, Essential or Desirable. Analysis for the 

limited additional metadata requirements ratings is a ratio of the response weighted points to the 

total possible weighted points, expressed as a percentage. Below describes the percentage of the 

respondents ratings weighted points total divided buy the total possible points, ranked from 

highest to lowest.

 Address Point Coordinate System was the highest rated additional metadata requirement, 

scoring 88% of the total possible points;

 Indicator of Quality was the second highest rated additional metadata requirement, 

scoring 81% of the total possible points;

 Date Address Last Validated was tied for the third highest rated additional metadata 

requirement, scoring 74% of the total possible points;

 Update Frequency was tied for the third highest rated additional metadata requirement, 

scoring 74% of the total possible points.
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 58

Additional Functional Requirements

The following pie charts describe the distribution of preferences from responding federal 

agencies, for the five highest weighted NAD functional requirements responses.

Figure 12

Figure 13

8

5

1

Dataset Interoperability

Essential Desirable Useful Unneeded

8

4

2

Anytime Access via Internet

Essential Desirable Useful Unneeded
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report 

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 59

Figure 14

Figure 15

8

4

1

1

Always Available/Mirror

Essential Desirable Useful Unneeded

8

4

1

1

Download Tools

Essential Desirable Useful Unneeded
Federal User Requirements Workshop Final Report

Version 1.0, January 19, 2018 60

Figure 16

 Dataset Interoperability is ranked first (Figure 12), with more than half rating this as 

Essential and only one response lower than Desirable;

 Anytime Access vis the Internet is ranked second (Figure 13), with more than half rating 

this as Essential and 86% rating it as Desirable or higher;

 Always Available/Mirror is tied for third (Figure 14), with more than half rating this as 

Essential and 86% rating it as Desirable or higher;

 Download Tools, is tied for third (Figure 15), with more than half rating this as Essential

and 86% rating it as Desirable or higher;

 Web Feature Services is ranked fifth (Figure 16), with half rating this as Essential and 

86% rating it as Desirable or higher.

7

5

1

1

Web Feature Services (WFS)

Essential Desirable Useful Unneeded