Setup & responsibilities
Your role.
Your part of the system.
GIS data quality is shared work. The Workbench is used in local GIS review; its results give other people a way to examine the issue, the decision, and the next step.
In development
What goes in.
What stays with you.
For local, regional, and state practitioners, including reviewers who do not own the authoritative source data.
| Working environment | Windows and ArcGIS Pro with ArcPy for the toolbox. A candidate-specific installation guide and environment requirements belong with an agreed evaluation. |
|---|---|
| GIS inputs | Local layers such as road centerlines, site/structure address points, and relevant public safety answering point (PSAP) or emergency-service boundaries. Confirm the layer and field mappings before relying on them. |
| Optional comparisons | Supply local Master Street Address Guide (MSAG) or Automatic Location Identification (ALI) records for those comparisons. Missing dependencies affect which questions can be evaluated. |
| Configuration | A jurisdiction profile holds local configuration and recorded decisions. Mapping confirmations and local conventions have explicit scope and history. |
| Standards context | The current development baseline uses a schema derived from NENA-STA-006.2-2022. Agree the applicable version and receiving-system requirements for your evaluation. |
| Result files | New spatial and tabular results, JSON, a readable offline HTML report, and an output receipt. Review history is held separately from authoritative source data. |
| Availability | In development The Workbench is not offered as a public download here. Discuss a potential evaluation or development partnership. |
Data handling
Keep the boundary clear.
The current Workbench runtime processes locally, without an external AI service, telemetry, or cloud processing. This website is an explanation of the tool.
- InputsPermitted local data
GIS layers, confirmed mappings, and optional MSAG or ALI records.
- Validation WorkbenchCheck and review
Examine conditions. Record decisions and their reasons.
- Separate outputsCarry the context
Spatial and tabular results, JSON, an offline report, and an output receipt.
Source edits stay in the authorized GIS workflow. Check a newly supplied copy after any correction. Keep results and profiles under your own retention and backup arrangements.
A useful first conversation
Start with the work
you need to do.
Describe the point where reviewing a result becomes difficult. We can begin there.
Bring a general workflow description or a public example. There is no need to send operational records or sensitive data.
What information helps establish fit?
Your role, ArcGIS Pro environment, relevant data-model version, layers involved, and the review or handoff you need to accomplish. If another system receives the data, name that step in the workflow.
Can it fix the source data for me?
The Workbench identifies conditions and supports review. Source edits stay in your GIS workflow. Reviewed status records a decision; it does not execute a correction.
Does Schema Bridge include the Workbench?
They are separate tools. Schema Bridge handles supported data-model conversions. The Workbench examines data and carries findings into human review.
What about pricing or procurement?
There is no published price or purchase commitment here. A conversation can define a useful scope, the access involved, responsibilities, and terms before anyone commits.
Where can I follow development?
The Public Record is Groundtruth’s home for writing and updates. Development support explains the work a partnership could make possible.
See how responsibilities can sit across a team
Responsibilities, not job-title silos
Find the question
you need answered.
In a small jurisdiction, one person may carry several of these responsibilities. In a statewide program, they may sit across multiple organizations.
GIS analysts & data stewards
What needs my attention?
Review a road, address, or boundary issue against its source identifier. Record the decision and reason, make any authorized correction in GIS, and check the next supplied data.
Inspect: the source-linked finding, separate severity and review status, and what happens when an issue returns.
Follow a findingGIS administrators & managers
Can our team use and sustain this?
Assess local setup, field mappings, repeatable review, and how another person inherits the context. Plan who maintains profiles and retains the separate result files.
Inspect: ArcGIS Pro requirements, local data handling, recorded decisions, and the review-to-edit handoff.
Review the operating requirementsGIOs & geospatial leadership
Can we account for the judgment behind the data?
Examine how local knowledge and scoped exceptions are documented alongside the original check. Establish who can approve a convention and how your organization preserves that record.
Inspect: exception scope, retained findings, portable outputs, and your own decision and retention responsibilities.
Examine a documented exception911 directors, regional authorities & state programs
What sits behind a reported data-quality issue?
Use the report to follow the condition and review status when a question moves between the program and its GIS data steward. Define how that evidence should inform your existing delivery and acceptance process.
Inspect: a readable result, the source reference, coverage context, and the difference between a review decision and a corrected source.
Read a report excerptProcurement, IT & program sponsors
What would a useful evaluation establish?
Start with a defined workflow and the staff who own it. Scope environment compatibility, data permissions, licensing, support, maintenance, cost, and the evidence required to decide what comes next.
Inspect: an agreed candidate and evaluation plan. The current engagement path is a scoped development or evaluation conversation.
See the evaluation outline