The document discusses how quality-of-life data is geocoded and used in urban assessment, emphasizing the importance of both hard data for policymakers and community relevance. It highlights issues like data fatigue and the potential misinterpretation of data, such as graffiti, which can be seen as a sign of disorder rather than a reflection of youth habitat. Overall, it argues that data practices in urban contexts involve standardization that can lead to problematic associations and challenge political neutrality.