NG911 GIS Information Session

Transcription

1 NG911 GIS Information Session January 29, 2018 Presented by: County GIS Professionals Association of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency

2 Welcome!

3 Agenda Our Goals for the Day County Pros Items PEMA GIS Workgroup NENA I3 Overview Address Issues Panel Discussion Lunch Authoritative Sources and NENA GIS Data Model Highlights MSAG Synchronization Break Future PA GIS NG911 Best Practices Overview Need for Boundary Delineation Procedures Boundary Issues Panel Discussion Wrap up and Next Steps

4 Today s Goals Talk about the relationship between NG911 and GIS. o From the NENA I3 document: authorities will be required to have accurate and complete GIS systems, which are used to provision the LVF and ECRF. A change to the 9-1-1Authority s GIS system automatically propagates to the ECRF and LVF and immediately affects routing. Provide information about PEMA s direction related to NG911 and GIS o PEMA understands the importance and need of GIS in the success of NG911 o PEMA is looking into ways to assist with GIS Data readiness for NG911 o Establish direct communication between GIS and PEMA

5 Today s Goals Provide an examination of NENA standards for better understanding. Share examples of issues and offer ideas on how to address them. Provide a forum for open communication. Hear what your concerns are, in order to provide solutions and future training opportunities to address them.

6 Today s Speakers Jeffrey Boyle, PEMA Barry Hutchins, Lycoming County Justin Smith, Cumberland County Tim Haynes, City of Philadelphia Tim Murphy, GISP, Columbia County Patrick McKinney, Cumberland County Steve Kocsis, GISP, Cambria County Nick Barger, Centre County Scott Zubek, Tioga County

7 GIS Pros Quarterly Meeting

8 County GIS Pros Several new Board Members for the 2018/2019 cycle 2018 membership dues invoices Revamped web site will be ready soon

9

10 PEMA Update Jeffrey Boyle, 911 Office Deputy Director, PEMA

11 PEMA GIS Workgroup GIS Workgroup o Representation from GIS Pros, 911 community, Technical subcommittee, State Agencies and NENA o GIS Data Gap Analysis o GIS Data Standards and Guidelines o NG9-1-1 GIS Strategic Plan Ortho-imagery RFP Updates Contact PEMA GIS: RA-EMPEMA-GIS@pa.gov

12 Overview of the NENA I3 Standard Barry Hutchins, Lycoming County

13 I3 NENA Functional and Interface Standards for Next Generation Version 1.0 (I3)

14 The Big Picture 1 Executive Overview Major changes in the existing emergency services architecture are being driven by the rapid evolution of the types of devices and services that can be used to call for help. Also there is an increasing volume and diversity of information that can be made available to assist PSAPs and responders in an emergency. NENA recognizes this is a fundamental update to the North American system, and is addressing the challenge with a system design called Next Generation (NG9-1-1). NG9-1-1 is the evolution of Enhanced to an all-ip-based emergency communications system. This technical specification, commonly referred to as I3, is the first version of the NG9-1-1 system design.

15 A bit more of The Big Picture 2.1 Operational Impacts Summary The I3 specification encompasses a complete redesign of the entire system, affecting all elements, protocols, processes and procedures. It will have far reaching impacts on all participants in the system. This document reflects the long-term view that the networks that connect the PSAP to callers and to other PSAPs and responders will evolve to be IP-based. Location of the caller (or a reference to it) will be conveyed with the call, so that routing can be accomplished dynamically along the path of the call from the caller to the call taker, and so that location is available as soon as the call is answered. Location within the system will be regularized, and made conformant with other users of location (for example, URISA standards). All elements will support both civic and geodetic forms of location.

16 The War and Peace novel of the NG9-1-1 world The revision currently under review has 361 pages.

17 Section in the revision which is directly related to the NG9-1-1GIS Data Model

18 Another section which impacts the NG9-1-1 GIS Data Model

19 Because the I3 document is the parent document Documents such as the NENA NG9-1-1 GIS Data Model must match the I3 documentation in such areas as: o Data field descriptions o Data field names o Field type and lengths

20 The current I3 document Covers many NG9-1-1 topics, well beyond the GIS portion of NG9-1-1 o System Architecture o Call Flow o Service Creation o Basic Services o Event Notification o Security o Service Management o Roles and Responsibilities

21 The I3 revision covers a lot more

22 While an in depth knowledge of I3 is not needed to build the GIS portion of NG9-1-1 The sections which specifically relate to the NENA NG9-1-1 GIS Data Model should be familiar to GIS professionals supporting NG9-1-1

23 Some other documents... Which impact the NENA NG9-1-1 GIS Data Model

24 CLDXF NG9-1-1 Civic Location Data Exchange Format Full Name: NENA Next Generation United States Civic Location Data Exchange Format (CLDXF) Document Type: Standard Number: NENA-STA NENA Next Generation United States Civic Location Data Exchange Format Standard, NENA-STA-004, March 23, 2014 has been NENA Board approved.

25 CLDXF continued The CLDXF document was developed to: o Provide a definitive set of core civic location data elements that support emergency call routing and dispatch. o Map a profile between Presence Information Data Format-Location Object (PIDF-LO) and those same NENA core civic location data elements. o Map those civic location data elements to the corresponding Federal Geographic Data Committee, United States Thoroughfare, Landmark, and Postal Address Data Standard, Document Number FGDC-STD set of data elements, which was sponsored by the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA) and the National Emergency Number Association (NENA). o Provide illustrative examples of address parsing. The NENA NG9-1-1 CLDXF standard supports the exchange of United States civic location address information about calls, both within the US and internationally. The NENA NG9-1-1 CLDXF standard covers civic location addresses within the United States, including its outlying territories and possessions. The NENA NG9-1-1 CLDXF standard defines the detailed data elements needed for address data exchange.

26 Some referenced documents are outside of NENA United States Thoroughfare, Landmark, and Postal Address Data Standard FGDC-STD (7 parts)

27 Another outside document Important for creation of the NG9-1-1 GIS data onational Imagery and Mapping Agency Technical Report TR8350.2; Department of Defense World Geodetic System Its Definition and Relationships with Local Geodetic Systems ; Third Edition, Amendment 1, 3 January 2000.

28 A document related to naming conventions and data domains The InterNational Committee for Information Technology Standards (INCITS) replaces the FIPS codes used in the past. The INCITS 31:2009 is the data domain for county names and equivalent.

29 An important NENA document Needed for the initial validation of GIS data which will be used for NG9-1-1 The NENA Information Document for Synchronizing Geographic Information System databases with MSAG & ALI, NENA , Version 1.1, September 8, 2009

30 Its objective This document is provided as a guide to synchronizing both the Master Street Address Guide (MSAG) and optionally the Automatic Location Information (ALI) databases to a Geographic Information System (GIS) geospatial database of road centerlines, site / structure locations, and related spatial databases. One must have a basic understanding of GIS concepts and MSAG data, or the resources available, in order to understand this document. The preferred method for performing the synchronization is using various database techniques. Emergency Service Zones, MSAG and Postal Community Names, and optionally the ALI data and address point data will all be used in the synchronization process. The synchronization of these databases will improve the accuracy of the GIS data, the MSAG, and optionally the ALI data, aid in meeting the requirements for Next Generation (NG9-1-1) and improve the accuracy of the GIS data for Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) map display for all types of calls. Once the corrections are made, the GIS road centerline file can then be used to validate addressing and to generate an up-to-date MSAG file for scrubbing service provider addresses.

31 The NENA NG9-1-1 GIS Data Model document Will contain a section with recommended reading 1 Recommended Reading and References 1) NENA Next Generation (NG9-1-1) United States Civic Location Data Exchange Format (CLDXF) Standard, NENA-STA ) NENA Detailed Functional and Interface Standards for the NENA i3 Solution, Appendix B, NENA-STA X (originally ). 3) National Imagery and Mapping Agency Technical Report TR8350.2; Department of Defense World Geodetic System Its Definition and Relationships with Local Geodetic Systems ; Third Edition, Amendment 1, 3 January ) The InterNational Committee for Information Technology Standards (INCITS) replaces the FIPS codes used in the past. The INCITS 31:2009 is the data domain for county names and equivalent. 5) The NENA GIS Data Collection and Maintenance Standards NENA , Issue 1, July 17, 2007, provides the NENA recommended standard for GIS data collection and GIS data maintenance. 6) The NENA Information Document for Synchronizing Geographic Information System databases with MSAG & ALI, NENA , Version 1.1, September 8, 2009, available at the NENA website is a guide to synchronizing both the Master Street Address Guide (MSAG) and optionally the Automatic Location Information (ALI) databases to a Geographic Information System (GIS) geospatial database of road centerlines, site / structure locations, and related spatial databases. The synchronization of these databases will improve the accuracy of the GIS data, the MSAG, and optionally the ALI data, aid in meeting the requirements for Next Generation (NG9-1-1) and improve the accuracy of the GIS data for Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) map display for all types of calls. Once the corrections are made, the GIS road centerline file can then be used to validate addressing and to generate an up-to-date MSAG file for scrubbing service provider addresses. 7) The NENA Standard Data Formats for Data Exchange & GIS Mapping, NENA , Version 9, December 16, 2010 contains version 2.0 of the GIS Data Model for E9-1-1, in Exhibit 22 of this document. 8) The NENA Wireless Call Routing & Testing Validation Standards , and Appendix A The Wireless Call Routing and Testing Validation Worksheet describe how GIS data can be used to determine the call routing of Phase 1 wireless calls, validate the wireless calls, locational accuracy and routing, and how GIS data in the PSAP is used as an aid for locating callers and dispatching emergency responders. 9) The Public Safety Answering Points Managers Guide to Geographic Information Technology, a National Emergency Number Association White Paper dated October 2002 provides an introduction to GIS technology and wireless technology and information on how to best deal with wireless information coming into the Public Safety Answering Point

32 The I3 document currently being revised will have a great deal more recommended readings (190 total) 14 Recommended Reading and References 7605 o Note that this version of the document contains many references to documents that are works in 7606 progress at the IETF and other organizations. As such this document may be revised as these 7607 references stabilize o 1. I3 Technical Requirements Document, National Emergency Number Association, NENA o.nena Detailed Functional and Interface o Standards for the NENA I3 Solution o NENA-STA X, Month, Day, o Year o [MM/DD/YYYY] Page 292 of 361 o 2. NENA Master Glossary of Terminology, National Emergency Number Association, 7611 NENA o 3. Interim VoIP Architecture for Enhanced Services (i2), National Emergency Number 7613 Association, NENA o 4. Framework for Emergency Calling in Internet Multimedia, B. Rosen, J. Polk, H. Schulzrinne, 7615 A. Newton, Internet Engineering Task Force, RFC o 5. Geopriv Requirements, J.Cueller et. al, Internet Engineering Task Force, RFC o 6. A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object Format, J. Peterson, Internet Engineering Task 7618 Force, RFC o 7. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Option for Coordinate-based Location Configuration 7620 Information, J. Polk, J. Schnizlein, M. Linsner, Internet Engineering Task Force, RFC o 8. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) Option for Civic Addresses 7622 Configuration Information, H. Schulzrinne, Internet Engineering Task Force, RFC o 9. HTTP Enabled Location Delivery (HELD) M. Barnes, ed., Internet Engineering Task Force, 7624 RFC o 10. Session Initiation Protocol Location Conveyance, J. Polk, B. Rosen, Internet Engineering 7626 Task Force, RFC o 11. A Hitchhikers Guide to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), J. Rosenberg, Internet 7628 Engineering Task Force, RFC o 12. Session Initiation Protocol, J, Rosenberg et. al., Internet Engineering Task Force, RFC o 13. RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications, H. Schulzrinne et. al., Internet 7631 Engineering Task Force, RFC o 14. SDP: Session Description Protocol, J. Handley, V. Jacobson, Internet Engineering Task Force, 7633 RFC o 15. Session Initiation Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP Servers, J. Rosenberg, H. Schulzrinne, Internet 7635 Engineering Task Force, RFC o 16. An Offer/Answer (SIP)-Specific Event Notification, A. Roach, Internet Engineering 7639 Task Force, RFC o 18. The Session Initiation ProtModel with the Session Description Protocol (SDP), J. Rosenberg, H Schulzrinne, Internet Engineering Task Force, RFC o 17. Session Initiation Protocol ocol UPDATE Method, J. Rosenberg, Internet Engineering Task 7641 Force, RFC o 19. A Privacy Mechanism for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), J. Peterson, RFC

33 At the very least The recommended documents which will be found in the NENA NG9-1-1 GIS Data Model when it is formally adopted as a standard o Should be reviewed by GIS professionals intending to support the GIS aspect of NG9-1-1

34 Where do we find the current standards? To start: o o Select the Standards & Best Practices section

35 NG9-1-1 documents have their own section

36 The Data Structures and Data Management sections Also include documents specific to NG9-1-1

37 It is not necessary To be a NENA member to access this section of the website Documents scheduled for public review will be announced on the home page under NENA News

38 It is necessary to be a NENA member To participate in the NENA Working Groups which are developing standards o There are attendance requirements for the WG participants

39 Questions? If we do not have an answer today, we will get you one!

40 Address Issues Panel Justin Smith, Cumberland County Tim Haynes, City of Philadelphia Tim Murphy, GISP, Columbia County Stacey Sekkes, GISP, Chester County

41 Address inconsistencies cause confusion and inefficiencies for dispatchers, service providers, residents, and GIS solutions.

42 Cumberland County Justin Smith, GIS Manager

43 Addresses with indirect access 42 addresses up to 4000 feet, into the forest, off of Pine Rd All 3 of these issues are on state roads PennDOT has been very receptive to road name and address number changes

44 Road is the boundary, with different names Hampden Township o Simpson Ferry Rd Mechanicsburg Borough o E Simpson St Work around o Road name is Simpson Ferry Rd o Alias name is E Simpson St

45 Name change when crossing boundary Hampden Township o St Johns Church Rd Shiremanstown Borough o N/S St Johns Rd o E Main St is North/South divide Lower Allen Township o N/S St Johns Rd o Gettysburg Rd is North/South divide Muni and Residents want change o Shiremanstown and Lower Allen rename and readdress St Johns Rd

46 Address improvement process 33 municipal and 2 military addressing authorities Identify and classify address issues Document problems/delays in emergency response Collaborate with municipal staff Draft solutions for readdressing as few properties as possible Build political capital with Public Safety to sell change

47 City of Philadelphia Tim Haynes, Senior Lead Analyst

48 Issue 1: College Campuses Many campus buildings are not addressed, or all buildings share a single address Saint Joseph s University

49 Issue 2: Subterranean Addresses Underground addresses can be placed two ways: o At the actual location of the address with the elevation attribute included o At the ingress point of the underground entrance Jefferson Station

50 Issue 3: Addressing Inconsistencies Multiple buildings using the same address Addresses are derived from multiple sources, where inconsistencies can occur

51 Example: 6200 Frankford Ave Businesses at both parcels use the same address Parcels are listed under different addresses

52 Columbia county Tim Murphy, GIS Director

53 Challenges Unreliable GIS Data to start Aggressive timeline Staff constraints Volume of calls by residents **Update of online mapping and navigation systems**

54 Update of online mapping and navigation systems Major delay involved in updating mapping systems o Google, HERE, Apple Five months later, will not provide timeline for completion

55 Road name changes Example: Cardinal Rd / Century Rd In total 390 address changes by road name Not on Google or GPS

56 Newly addressed private lanes Over 134 newly named and addressed private roads 952 new addresses on private lanes Not on Google or GPS

57 Result Upset residents Frustrated delivery drivers Some emergency personnel continue to use, causing frustration and delay Blame placed on readdressing project Be patient only lasts so long * Massive number of change of addresses can take online mapping systems considerable time to be updated

58 Questions?

59 Lunch