Comment 2441
New (Unresolved)
NENA-STA-015.10-201X_DataFormats_PubRvw (Revision 0)
Comment Submitted by
Bob Finney III-ENP
2017-12-21 17:19:48

Generally speaking a "dispatchable" address an incident address that is validated in a local PSAP or dispatch agency's Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD-GIS or tabular based) system (the Dispatch FE) and not in the call taking or call routing elements, where Jurisdiction is of primary concern.  1) A WDL2 COS may provide a valid address (in the local response [read CAD] database) but not be relative to the “dispatchable” location of the incident.  More importantly 2) many GIS databases on dispatch elements don't match sub-address information that is commonly received today (units/suites/apts.) from RESD/BUSN COS to the ALI data delivered because of the difficulty in maintaining accurate information to that granularity.  This causes some dispatch systems to have an option to not validate against sub-address information received directly from the ALI (CPE) in order to avoid excessive hits, non-matches or invalid options being presented.  Using this option often presents the call taker with less precise (street centerline) options.  To present this “dispatchable” location (WDL1, WDL2, WCVC) which will theoretically be more granular, dynamic and from unknown sources (i.e. not from the local authority responsible for maintaining local GIS “dispatchable” data) opens the door for error and liability.  Should a high-level database be described as providing local, “dispatchable” addresses? Will the data collected in NEADS be provided to local jurisdictions to “dispatch” against?  Is NEADS going to be then the database maintaining GIS data to the standards set forth by NENA?

Submitter Proposed Solution

Replace the word "dispatchable" throughout document with address previously "established", "verified" or "identified".