Acella: non coincident parcel address problem
This page is to describe and discuss what a potential problem with EAS addresses in the adoption of the Acella system.
Definition
We'll call this the non coincident parcel address problem.
Some EAS addresses contain parcels that are not spatially coincident with their address point.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
This is the parcel footprint of "1011 Silliman St" which includes parcels 5935-027 and 5935-028.
Parcel 5935-028 is not spatially coincident with the address point (in green).
Here is the same address with imagery. This looks like a single home.
You can see this for yourself in EAS.
Acella does not support this sort of address.
In Acella, parcels for an address must be spatially coincident with the address point.
Variation
There is quite a bit of variation to these data.
This one has 3 contiguous parcels.
This one is looks complicated but is not - it's just linked to 2 over lapping retired parcels, plus another unretired parcel... OK, that's a little bit complicated.
This one is non-contiguous and seems likely to be an error of some sort.
Universe
Here is a spreadsheet that contains all of these addresses.
You can see these in detail in EAS.
There are 3253 unretired parcel level addresses currently being used at DBI.
This is out of some 300,000 plus addresses.
We can find these easily with a query like this.
SELECT ab.base_address_num, ab.base_address_suffix, a.unit_num, sn.base_street_name, sn.street_type, p.blk_lot FROM address_base ab inner join addresses a on (ab.address_base_id = a.address_base_id) inner join streetnames sn on (ab.street_segment_id = sn.street_segment_id) inner join street_segments ss on (ab.street_segment_id = ss.street_segment_id) left outer join address_x_parcels axp on (axp.address_id = a.address_id) left outer join parcels p on (axp.parcel_id = p.parcel_id) WHERE 1 = 1 and sn.category = 'MAP' and ab.retire_tms is null and a.retire_tms is null and axp.retire_tms is null and not st_intersects(ab.geometry, p.geometry) order by ss.st_name, ss.st_type, ab.base_address_num, ab.base_address_suffix, a.unit_num;
Questions
Does DBI have to support this kind of address?
Can we live with the Acella constraint of allowing only parcels to be part of an address if the parcel is spatially coincident?
Discussion
Paul McCullough
We were planning to adapt the existing EAS change notification process to feed address changes into the Acella GIS.
In doing so we would not have to stick with the exact model layed out in the XML file.
In fact, it may help to think about the Acella address data as a view (in the MVC sense) of the EAS address....
and perhaps the address point in Acella GIS is not the address base point but rather the parcel centroid.
Another possibility is for EAS to adopt a muli-point geometry for the base address.
Another other ideas?
Mike Wynne
From: Wynne, Mike [mailto:mike.wynne@sfgov.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 4:58 PM To: Paul Rose Cc: Chinn, Alton Subject: APO data...or mainly just the 'A' Hi Paul, hope things are going well with you. I’ve started working with Paul McCullough (at our Dept of Technology). Paul manages the City’s Enterprise Addressing System (EAS). He has worked closely with the Dept of Building Inspections to create a live synching of addresses between EAS and DBIs permitting system. I am now working with Paul to get something similar in place for the Accela-GIS address data. DBI’s current system allows some address related tasks that I am sure we can’t replicate within the Accela software, but I just wanted to confirm this before speaking with DBI. Incidentally, this may not be a problem, I just want to be clear when we speak to them. In their current system each address record includes a latitude/longitude coordinate and a link to a list of associated parcels. When they search for an address it will return the address, the lat/long coordinate and also all of the associated parcels. There are over 3,000 addresses in the City’s address data where the address is linked to multiple, disparate parcels (parcels which do not all lie under the lat/long point – e.g. a row of adjacent parcels with a single address, or even and address linked to multiple parcels scattered over a couple of blocks). It seems to me that in Accela-GIS, for each property, we can EITHER store the point geometry (based on the lat/long) OR the combined geometries of the associated parcels. I believe that it is these geometries that will define what data is returned to the Accela Automation user after they have searched for an address (the parcels, owners, zoning, environmental data, etc). The issue is that if we go for a point geometry I see no way of returning any parcels that are not immediately below the point. Whereas if we use the geometries of the associated parcels I see no way of having addresses that lie outside any parcel (e.g. an address located in the street – an address with no associated parcel). Can you confirm if this is correct? Thanks, Mike
Paul Rose
Mike, I passed your questions/comments on to Accela Engineering and received an initial response. Our Standard XAPO for Accela GIS will not be able to handle cases where an address point doesn’t intersect the associated parcel geometry. For the additional logic needed to be able to evaluate data and find/select parcels or address points that do not overlay each other, a custom XAPO adapter would need to be developed. If we end up going down that road, additional analysis would be required and GIS data examples would need to be provided so that an estimate could be done for the custom XAPO adapter. If using our standard XAPO adapter for AGIS, the end user would be presented with a list of address points and or parcels and owners that intersect the selected object and the user would have to select what other components of APO they want to pass back to Accela Automation. What Accela Automation stores for GIS objects is normally the Parcel’s GIS unique ID and then the information for Parcels, Addresses and Owners is stored as transactional data to the new record. However, any GIS feature ID can be associated to an Accela Record, it just is normally the Parcel ID. Paul H. Rose Senior Consultant
Paul McCullough
Mike, I have requested a meeting with Hema... Can we use a multipoint geometry?
Mike Wynne
Yes, we can use multipoint. I would have thought either multipoint or multipolygon were definitely the way to go. Realistically, Planning’s needs for addressing are much simpler than DBI’s so either would work for us in Planning. The planners work almost exclusively with parcel numbers rather than addresses. Everything else being equal I would always prefer multipolygon but I know Alton prefers multipoint. I think we should go with whichever works best for DBI. Thanks, mike