I attended the URISA / NENA Addressing Conference a few weeks ago in Charlotte. This is the first time I had attended this conference in a few years, the first time being in Baltimore in 2000.

The thing that immediately stuck me was that the addressing community is still talking about the same issues it was 10 years ago! And the issues are predictable. I give you, in no particular order:

• sharing data

• standards

• data quality

• reconciling multiple systems

• multiple authorities

• lack of process

So haven't we been able to move the ball forward on addressing and address data management in the last 10 years? I think that there are three main reasons:

1. People think that things are different or unique in their own jurisdiction.

2. Power politics and empire building, particularly in jurisdictions that feature multiple systems and / or multiple authorities.

3. The URISA / NENA conference is really the only forum for the exchange of ideas and information.

The thing is that, while each jurisdiction does have its own idiosyncratic addressing issues, 99% of what one jurisdiction is doing is replicated in almost every other jurisdiction. The problem isn't really what's being done, it's how it's being done.

This is the part that really floors me: across North America, local governments are responsible for delivering pretty much the same basket of services to their citizens; however, there are as many processes for assigning and managing the addresses for delivering these services as there are local governments. Consider just who assigns addresses: depending on the jurisdiction, it could be the permitting department, the planning department, the water utility, the telephone company, or even the developer.

Given that local governments deliver the same set of services, I can't think of a good reason that each jurisdiction needs to reinvent the wheel when establishing how to deliver these services. Most of the people I've met with who are responsible for addresses in their jurisdiction are just trying to do their jobs, and what they're really looking for is some guidance and best practices.

Here are the three main elements that are needed to establish guidance on best practices for addressing:

1. Standard processes. Why does the planning department assign addresses in one county, while in the next county over, the telephone company assigns addresses? It doesn't make sense. We need a best practices manual that defines the best practices for address assignment, based on a survey of existing processes and their effectiveness.

2. Data standards. The FGDC Address Data Standard is a great start. It provides a good logical model for addresses, which now needs to be further specified as a set of implementation standards.

3. Addressing tools. Addressing authorities want to follow best practices, and use accepted standards. They need tools to help them to do that within their jurisdictions. Obviously, GIS tools are going to be a big part of that.

So where are we now? We currently don't have much of anything in terms of standard processes; there are a smattering of tools available on the market; certainly we're furthest ahead on the data standards side. I hope that in the coming years we start to make some progress in the other areas so that we can finally lay some of these persistent issues to rest.