Auditorium Part 1 - NAPSG Foundation...Multi‐purpose, supporting extended Public Safety communications services in addition to 9‐1‐1. NG9‐1‐1 assumes that ESInets are hierarchical,

Auditorium – Part 1

Sandi Stroud

Grant Ervin

• National Director of Public Safety GIS for Michael Baker International

• Chair of the National Alliance for Public Safety GIS Mid Atlantic Regional Leadership Team.

• Former GIS Coordinator for the Baltimore Metropolitan Council & GIS support to the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response of Health and Human Services’ operations center

Topics Covered

9-1-1 Technology & Terminology

GIS and Next Generation 9-1-1

Getting Ready

9-1-1 TECHNOLOGY &

TERMINOLOGY

Dial “911”

Emergency Call Routing

Speaking to PSAP

MSAG – Master Street Address Guide

Defined by telephone provider and controlled by the

locality that designates what emergency service provider

will respond to what address ranges.

Think attribute table for a centerline dataset

ANI/ALI – Automatic Number Identification/Automatic Location

Information

ANI – the phone number (landline) that is calling 911

ALI – think the service provider’s customer database (phone

#, subscriber name and address)

ESN/ESZ – Emergengy Service Number/Emergency Service Zone

ESN – a three digit number that designates the PSAP and

sometimes the specific fire/ems/law response district

ESZ – a GIS layer that represents the ESN in spatial format

“Put simply, NG911 is an Internet Protocol (IP)-based

system that allows digital information (e.g., voice,

photos, videos, text messages) to flow seamlessly from

the public, through the 911 network, and on to

emergency responders”. US DOT

Analog systems

becoming under utilized &

expensive to manage

Changing expectations

of public

Changing landscape of communication devices

Why Next Gen?

Existing system is over 40

years old

– the network

ESInets are managed networks

Multi‐purpose, supporting extended Public Safety

communications services in addition to 9‐1‐1.

NG9‐1‐1 assumes that ESInets are hierarchical, or

a `network of networks’ in a tiered design

approach to support local, regional, state and

national emergency management authorities.

– the

location of the 911 caller

– get the call to the

right place

Replaces the MSAG/ALI functionality

(eventually)

Is the software that determines the 911

call center to route the call too.

– provide

the correct location of the caller

Valid “locations” are pre-verified against

the GIS. Errors are reported to the data

authority for analysis and update

Mapping

Community A

Address

Authori

ty

PSAP

Authori

ty

GIS

Authori

ty

QA/QC &

Data

Conversio

n

Address

Authori

ty

PSAP

Authori

ty

GIS

Authori

ty

QA/QC &

Data

Conversio

n

Community B

Location

Information

Server

Location

Validation

Function

Emergency

Call Routing

Function

PSAP

Emergency

Service

Routing

Proxy

911 Call

GIS AND NG911

Standards

Identifying Authority: Addressing,

GIS and PSAPs

Data Requirements

STANDARDS

NENA

Published

08-003 Detailed Functional and Interface Standards for the NENA i3 Solution

71-501 Synchronizing GIS with MSAG & ALI

Draft

GIS Data Model for NG9-1-1

this document defines the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database model that will be used to support the NENA Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG9- 1-1) systems, databases, call routing, call handling, and related processes.

Provisioning and Maintenance of GIS data to ECRF/LVF

Site/Structure Address Points

Is currently developing a document to serve as a guide for those developing site/structure address point data in a GIS for use in 9-1-

Next Generation 9-1-1 Data Management Requirements

The intent of the document is to provide 9-1-1 authorities, vendors, Communication Service Providers (CSP), and other interested parties with guidelines for communicating issues or status of various elements within the system.

This document describes the “end state” that has been reached after a migration from legacy TDM circuit-switched telephony, and the legacy E9-1-1 system built to support it, to an all IP-based telephony system with a corresponding IP-based Emergency Services IP network (ESInet). To get to this “end state” it is critical to understand the following underlying assumptions:

#5 9-1-1 authorities have and GIS systems, which are used to provision the LVF and ECRF. A to the 9-1-1Authority’s GIS

propagates to the ECRF and LVF and immediately affects routing.”

(NENA 08-003, p. 16)

MINIMUM DATA REQUIRED

TO SUPPORT ECRF/LVF IN I3

NG9-1-1 ARCHITECTURE*Road

Centerlines

PSAP Boundaries

Emergency Services

Boundaries

Authoritative Boundaries

Source: data supplied to the SIF should come from each jurisdiction

as defined by the extents of the

Authoritative Boundary polygon.

Footprint: each PSAP needs access

to a seamless, normalized and

highly accurate footprint of data

from any jurisdiction it shares a

boundary with.

Update: new data and data errors

should be updated in the GIS within

a 1-3 business day cycle.

Accuracy: Each source entity is

responsible for the accuracy (both

spatial and attribution) of each

dataset. This results in the need for

coordination amongst neighboring

jurisdictions as there are no

allowable gaps, overlaps or

redundancies in any of the

datasets.

*Address Point data is not required per the NENA NG9-1-1 GIS

Data Model but will likely be deemed so by the majority of end-

users.

AttributeMandatory/Opti

onalField Type

Field

Length

Source of Data M A 75

Date Updated M D 26

Effective Date M D 26

Expiration Date O D 26

RCL_Unique_ID M A 100

Defines, the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database model

that will be used to support the NENA Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG9- 1-1)

systems, databases, call routing, call handling, and related processes.

Not written for the GIS stakeholder

May need some additional “translation”

MINIMUM requirements

Still in draft mode; is planned for public comment release.

Already being used

Different versions are being adopted and used by local, regional and

state authorities (TIPS)

Does not “require” address points

The requirements will be driven by business process and stakeholder input

New data layers for a GIS

Authoritative Boundary

PSAP Boundary

Emergency Services Boundaries

IDENTIFYING AUTHORITY:

ADDRESSING, GIS AND PSAPS

DATA REQUIREMENTS, ANALYSIS

& CLEAN-UP

Actual Address Range From (Left

Side)

5

Actual Address Range To (Left

Side)

79

Actual Address Range From (Right

Side)

8

Actual Address Range To (Right

Side)

88

Pre Directional (prefix) N

Street Name Main

Street Type St

Post Directional (suffix) SE

Potential* Address Range From (Left

Side)

1

Potential* Address Range To (Left

Side)

99

Potential *Address Range From (Right

Side)

2

Potential *Address Range To (Right

Side)

98

City (Left) Annapolis

City (Right)

Zip (Left) 21401

Zip (Right) 21032

County (Left) Anne Arundel

County (Right) Anne Arundel

Will have to add:

• ESN

• MSAG community

(city/county)

• Optional attributes

1. Address Parity issues

2. Post Directional or not

3. Street Suffixes

4. Street Name format

5. Street naming issues

NG9-1-1 and GIS Workflow

Centerline Validations

•Spatial

•Crosses Multiple Polygons

•Street pointing in wrong direction

•Not in polygon later

•Attribution

•Address range overlaps

•Parity Errors

Address Point Validations

•Spatial

•Structure on wrong side of the street

•Crosses multiple polygons

•Structure out of order

•Not in polygon layer

•Empty Geometry

•Attribute

•Not matching street range or street name

•Parity error

•On wrong block

•Out of order

•Duplicate point

Boundary Quality Control

• PSAP, ESZ, other polygons

• Gaps/Overlaps

• Attribute Spelling

Database Schemas

• Compare and map disparate datasets

• Ensure cardinality of attributes

• One-to-one mapping with master dataset

• Identify missing attributes

• Attribute type formatting

MSAG/ALI Synchronization

• Create MSAG from centerline data

• Compare to provided county MSAG

• Suggest resolution of discrepancies with a goal of 98% match rate

• Validate ALI w/ Centerline and Address Points

*slated for release in v2

?

Comparing the MSAG and GIS databases will identify inconsistentnaming conventions, inaccurate address information, improper ESNassignments to MSAG records, improper community assignments,improper exchange designations, and other discrepancies. Thecomparison process will also reveal fictitious data, incompleteinformation, and data that exist in only one database. It is importantto note that errors or missing information can exist in both databasesand other sources should be consulted as well to improve the overallaccuracy and completeness of the data.

Step 1 – convert centerline into a MSAG table

Step 2 – compare centerline to MSAG

Ranges must fall within MSAG high/low

Attributes must match

Step 3 – make updates and corrections to centerline and/or MSAG

Geocode ALI table to centerline

All address’ w/ less than 100% match rate need to be reviewed for errors in either centerline or ALI database

Geocode ALI table to address points (if available)

Address’ w/ less than 100% match rate need to be reviewed for errors in ALI database or address points

Address’ w/ no match need to be field verified as either missing address point OR erroneous address in ALI database

DI STREET LOW HIGH COMM ST O_E ESN

N 10TH ST 100 1099 WEST MONROE LA 002

N 10TH ST 2400 2699 WEST MONROE LA 002

FID PL_ADD_F PL_ADD_T PR_ADD_F PR_ADD_T PRE_DIR STREET_NAM STREET_TYP CITY_L CITY_R ESN_L ESN_R

503 401 899 400 898N 10th St West Monroe West Monroe 2 2







Typical street

centerline

attribute

table

Corresponding

MSAG features

MSAG

Errors in MSAG • Blank fields

• Incorrect ESN/MSAG community

• Incorrect domains (ie: street type)

Run initial MSAG validations

Errors in Centerline • Incorrect domains (ie: street type)

• Punctuation and spaces

• No ESN/MSAG community*

Run initial centerline validations

Errors in either

MSAG or

Centerline

• Centerline or MSAG range inaccuracy

• Centerline or MSAG attribute discrepancy

• No match centerline or MSAG features

Centerline-MSAG comparison

MSAG-Centerline comparison

ALI

Errors in ALI • Blank fields

• Incorrect ESN/MSAG community


• ALI no match to MSAG or attribute discrepancy

Run initial ALI validations

ALI – MSAG validations

Errors in Address

Point


• Punctuation and spaces

• No ESN/MSAG community*

Run initial address point

validations

Errors in either ALI,

Address Points or

Centerline

• No match ALI to Address Point

• No match ALI to Centerline

• Partial match ALI to Address Point

• Partial match ALI to Centerline

ALI – Centerline

ALI – Address Point

Dial “911”

Emergency Call Routing

Speaking to PSAP

Looking for at least 98% accuracy between ALI database

and the GIS location data (address points and centerlines)

Common “no match” errors GIS will have to fix:

• Address was changed by authority but not updated w/

telco

• Address was made up by telco or customer (didn’t know

address)

• Phone service disconnected

• Assigned to an alarm system (no ringing phone)

NENA is developing a data management requirements

document that includes recommended turnaround times for

error correction in GIS data provided to the system

In draft format

Between 1 and 3 business days

RECCOMENDATION:

Need an internal GIS data maintenance workflow that enables

the emergency communications center to edit the GIS that their

system is using in near-real time fashion. Also needs to include

workflow for new address’ to enter into GIS system in near-real

time fashion.

Currency needs

New Editors

PSAP and Addressing Authority

Getting current updates from border

jurisdictions

• New Role for Spatial Data

• Getting Data Ready for a “go live”

• Data Requirements

• Maintenance/Update Workflow

• Mutual Aid Data

Resources to accommodate the data clean-up process and

create new needed datasets?

Maintenance workflows needed to keep data quality at the

level for NG911 software and near real-time updates?

Integrated GIS support with emergency communications?

Collaboration with bordering jurisdictions in creating seamless

and disparate regional GIS datasets?

Mechanism to accept frequent updates of neighbors data?

NENA http://www.nena.org/

– Committees

– Standards

– Local events to connect with other GIS professionals

Local/State GIS Organizations

Resources

http://www.nena.org/

NG-911 Town Hall Meeting: Overcoming

Challenges in Implementing NG-911

National Geospatial Preparedness Summit

Auditorium – Part 1

Given the data maintenance requirements and

liability associated with the GIS that supports

NG9-1-1 call routing, where should “authority”

lay and what role should local, regional and

state governments play? Local/Internal – Who are the “authorities” of the GIS data

internally?

Regional – Who are regional entities that could support the

GIS data mutual aid footprint needs?

State - Is there a unifying state government entity that can

support the data collection needs?

How well connected are they with 911 leaders?

How will the GIS data clean-up and

maintenance workflows be funded or

resourced? Is it an “unfunded mandate” in your jurisdiction

How integrated is your PSAP operations with GIS?

How have you addressed issues and

limitations associated with your

jurisdiction’s network capabilities? Many communities face limitations with data and IT security,

insufficient data storage capabilities, and other issues in pushing

certain information over their networks.

How have you accounted for and solved NG-

911 related policy issues?

Do you know how 911 is managed (or is there any

management)?

Are there current data sharing issues locally or statewide?

Leveraging existing mutual aid agreements

Is there a state controlled 911 fund?

Do they offer grants or GIS specific support?

Documents

Auditorium Part 1 - NAPSG Foundation...Multi‐purpose, supporting extended Public Safety communications services in addition to 9‐1‐1. NG9‐1‐1 assumes that ESInets are hierarchical,