search

open-data-standards / permitdata.org

:hammer: A website for the BLDS Data Specification
https://permitdata.org
39 stars 7 forks source link

Consider adding tax block/lot to recommended or optional fields #73

Closed jqnatividad closed 8 years ago

jqnatividad commented 8 years ago

as this is often a more stable identifier that can also be used to crosswalk other jurisdiction datasets (i.e. property tax)

jqnatividad commented 8 years ago

On second thought, required might be too stringent, perhaps recommended or optional.

jqnatividad commented 8 years ago

a.k.a. Assessor's parcel number, Assessor's identification number, Property identification number, Property Account number, tax id number, parcel identification number, sidwell number, borough block lot (NYC), etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assessor%27s_parcel_number

mheadd commented 8 years ago

In Philadelphia, its referred to as OPA or BRT number (OPA = Office of Property Assessment, BRT = Board of Revision of Taxes [deprecated]).

mheadd commented 8 years ago

Some proposed language for adding a new Parcel ID filed to the list of recommended fields in the Core Permit Dataset.

Recommended

Field DataType Description
Parcel ID TEXT Unique identifier for a land parcel within a jurisdiction. The identifier may be colloquially referred to as assessor's ID, tax ID, parcel number, etc.
mheadd commented 8 years ago

Related to this issue about multi-parcel permits.

jqnatividad commented 8 years ago

What about this expanded description?

"Primary unique identifier for a land parcel within a jurisdiction used for tax assessment purposes. The identifier may be colloquially referred to as assessor's ID, tax ID, parcel number, etc."

mheadd commented 8 years ago

Makes sense to me. Will wait to hear if others offer suggestions and update here when the change is finalized.

bettin commented 8 years ago

How is this different than the "PIN" field in the Recommended list which is for "Parcel Identification Number" https://github.com/open-data-standards/permitdata.org/wiki/Core-Permits-Dataset-Requirements#recommended

mheadd commented 8 years ago

@bettin: Hmm, perhaps we should update the existing PIN field with the description provided by @jqnatividad. I missed that when I reviewed this issue. I think the intent in including it was to address the kinds of issue Joel raised, but the description as is isn't very helpful.

Thoughts?

mheadd commented 8 years ago

Closed with this change.