Making Public Private Partnership WorkMassachusetts / NAVTEQ Street Data Partnership

Overview

Partnership Data update Ongoing

maintenance Future path

This content was largely derived from Sean Sweeney’s presentation to URISA / NENA conference on addressing.

Multi-agency public-private

EOEEAMassGIS

EOPSSSETB

EOTPWOTP

PSAPs need roads data

No address ranges

MassGIS

7

NAVTEQ Relationships

Automotive Manufacturers

System Vendors

Telematics

Internet & Wireless

Mobile Devices

Enterprise

NAVTEQ does the field work

NAVTEQ Project data work

-Leveraging field/data collection power with their state wide network. - Using NAVTEQ Maps as a base, MASS GIS cross- referenced our

database with several of their lists creating a list of “mismatches”. NAVTEQ processed the “mismatch” list through their Internal tools to

determine the real missing data; and many initially listed were due to our internal spec, naming convention etc. Levels of match accuracy were created.

Created a streamlined process so the NAVTEQ Field team works directly with MASS GIS

True missing streets were driven and entered using our standard postal work process.

Created a standardized process to communicate each quarter.

ou

Project data work

MSAG standardization Compare NT to other data Integrate with EOT Conflation Lessons learned

MSAG Translation

Standardization…

…Abbreviation

Assign streets to MSAG communities

Identify missing streets

Verify against other data sets

Custom Tools

Integrate new NAVTEQ roads into EOT database

Legend

NAVSTREETS

EOT

Conflate NAVTEQ addresses onto EOT roads

MSAG Community boundaries Standardization

− Especially “ST”:

NAVTEQ Alias handling Address range handling Mixed-parity ranges:

Lessons learned

1 1

99 99

1 2

99 98

Lessons learned

Hard to compare many complex datasets No “right” answer

− Must match MSAG All takes time:

− 18 months to put partnership together− 2 years to get data updated

But payoff was there

On Going Maintenance Quarterly processing

Step 1: Standardize and Install in MapStar Step 2: Verify in office

− Compare to MSAG− Compare to EOT− Compare to Muni/Parcels

Step 3: Verify in field Step 4: Repeat

Data preparation

NAVTEQ

MASSGIS

SETB PSAPs

EOT

Web reporting tool

Future path

EOT Linework Future path: customized MSAG standardization Future path: point geocoding Future path: time-of-creation collection

Future path: EOT linework

Future path: customized MSAG standardization

MSAG Format

Multiple Input Sources

Standardize

FGDC Format

MSAG Format

Other Formats

Translate

Future path: point geocoding

Conclusion

Partnership is a win-win:− Mass GIS

Furthered mandate Improved roads for entire Commonwealth

− 911 Saved money Better data

− EOT Saved money Better data

− NAVTEQ Better data Received faster updating of streets and roads