Local addresses in Esri Rapid data vs the NAD

Communities United States
, ,
1

I’ve noticed that for some reason, some local jurisdictions (Sioux Falls, SD, Chester County, PA, Alexandria, VA, Bismark & Fargo, ND, Boston, MA, Indianapolis, IN, and San Diego County, CA, for instance) are sending their local address point data to Esri for use as a Rapid import dataset, or it’s somehow being pulled in directly as a local-specific Rapid import dataset, instead (?) of sending it in to be sucked into the National Address Database itself, which would benefit far more users than just us Rapid/MapWithAI heads. Is there something that Esri can do about this, either passing the data along for NAD incorporation or working with local jurisdictions so they can maintain the pipeline to the NAD themselves? Or at the very least, filter local datasets from jurisdictions where those datasets would be duplicative of their NAD submissions?

P.S. As an aside, California needs to get their act together re: getting address data to the NAD, if nobody else
P.P.S. perhaps once we get this sorted for addresses, we can also filter out things like Seattle’s local footway dataset given that it’s in OpenFootways?

2

My understanding is that the Esri datasets are the same ones that are in OpenAddresses - ones where a county or city has published their own dataset to their own data portal. Getting the data into NAD is a much bigger step for those jurisdictions, but Esri (or Meta?) is willing to standardize the fields enough to use them in Rapid. I don’t think the countries or cities have any part in enrolling the data there, though I could be wrong about this - it’s just open data they have already published.

3

I wanted to also follow up about California and NAD - I work with the people this would fall to, and I can say it’s not happening right now, in part because there’s no mandate or funding to make this happen at a statewide level. If you want to see California participate statewide, I recommend calling your representatives.

1 Like