1 / 54

CONTEXT

PANEL: Digital Parcel Map Database Standards for Broad Use. Digital Parcel Map Database ... PANEL: Digital Parcel Map Database Standards for Broad Use ...

flora
Download Presentation

CONTEXT

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    Digital Parcel Map Database Development Standards for Broad Use Moderator: Dennis H. Klein George Horning: King County WA GIS Local Perspective Carol Hall: Metro Portland Planning Agency Regional Perspective Cy Smith: Oregon State Geospatial Enterprise Office State Perspective Dennis H. Klein: Boundary Solutions, Inc. Private/Public Perspective Digital Parcel Map Database Development Standards for Broad Use Moderator: Dennis H. Klein George Horning: King County WA GIS Local Perspective Carol Hall: Metro Portland Planning Agency Regional Perspective Cy Smith: Oregon State Geospatial Enterprise Office State Perspective Dennis H. Klein: Boundary Solutions, Inc. Private/Public Perspective George Horning: King County WA GIS LOCAL PERSPECTIVE Digital Parcel Map Database Standards The Local Perspective is discussed framed around four main topics: The current state of parcel mapping in King County.  Parcel map standardization is largely driven by local initiative to meet local need – with little influence from state or federal agencies.  Meeting a standard to accommodate the broad use of parcel data is somewhat straightforward, but lack of consistency does have its costs. Increased commercial use of parcel data is causing local government to revisit data standards.

    Slide 4:CONTEXT Parcel Mapping in King County, Washington

    Over 600,000 parcels spread across 39 jurisdictions means parcel mapping in King County is complex. Besides the King County Assessor, 10-15 cities are independently engaged in parcel mapping to varying levels of skill and sophistication. Cities maintain their own parcel map because in their view the county map does not meet some of their key business requirements. The key needs of the cities are precise positional accuracy and timely updates of parcel changes.

    Slide 5:CONTEXT Parcel Mapping in King County, Washington

    As a result, the typical city’s parcel map will have greater positional accuracy and will be more current than the county’s map. However, typical city’s parcel map… Will have less detail, Will likely lack any capacity to reconstruct historic parcel lines. Why the differences? Lack of policy shared by cities and county for setting commonly accepted map standards. The county follows the requirements of a state mandate to map parcels, while cities with no such mandate streamline their mapping tasks to meet their needs only.

    Slide 6:NEED FOR MAP STANDARDS At the Local Level

    A single, countywide digital parcel map exists for King County, maintained by the Assessor. However, for a variety of reasons, this map is not satisfactory to all local users. Several cities independently maintain their own separate versions of the parcel map. These maps are not consistent across the county, as they do not share common geometry or content. Local users are the primary victims of inconsistent mapping standards, when they attempt to share, analyze, or combine city and county data. The need to develop a single “integrated” King County parcel map that would satisfy all users is locally driven.

    Slide 7:NEED FOR MAP STANDARDS At the Local Level

    There is no pressure on King County from regional, state, or federal agencies to create a parcel layer based on a compulsory standard. These agencies are apparently content with the current quality of data they can obtain from the county, and are largely unaware of the issues of local concern regarding the consistency and currency of the data. A move to standardize on an integrated parcel map in King County would primarily benefit local users by… Limiting duplication of effort, Facilitating data sharing, MOST importantly, improving data quality and consistency.

    Slide 8:NEED FOR MAP STANDARDS At the Local Level

    Impediments to creating the integrated city/county parcel map are many, but the most critical are… Institutional inertia – No political will by decision-makers to fix a problem whose solution will temporarily inconvenience their internal operations. They are getting their basic business needs met with the status quo, so why expend the time, money, and effort. Lack of staff resources – No available resources to deal with the bulge of work that will be required to make the change. Negotiating compromise – The only foreseen path for King County appears to be to negotiate a unique arrangement with each city that eliminates duplicate data maintenance and integrates the city’s and the county’s parcel data. This will take years of compromise.

    Slide 9:NEED FOR MAP STANDARDS At the Local Level

    A relentless process to create a single integrated parcel map sustained long enough will result… In the Near Term – Each city/county relationship will be unique. At the end of the Day – A common universal template will likely evolve that defines the city/county relationship for the maintenance of a common parcel map.

    Slide 10:DATA SHARING NEEDS Meeting a Data Sharing Standard for Broad Use

    Relaxed standards for data sharing are fairly straightforward and easy to meet for most counties engaged in digital parcel mapping. Such a “de facto” standard provides data in a basic format that nearly any data requestor has the technology to read and use, and nearly any data author can produce. Common components are… Shapefile with a parcel number field, ASCII or DBF version of the tax roll with a parcel number field, Metadata for both. In this scenario, after the data have been received, the data requestor will bear the burden and the additional costs of converting the data products to meet more rigid protocols.

    Slide 11:DATA SHARING NEEDS Meeting a Data Sharing Standard for Broad Use

    Rigid Standards for data sharing may be more problematic for some local jurisdictions to meet. An additional level of technical sophistication is required, and they most certainly will need to pass along the costs incurred to process and format the data to meet the required specifications. In this scenario, the data requestor bears the cost up front for the data to be prepared and delivered in the preferred specification. In either scenario, the data end-users cannot avoid bearing the price of inconsistent standards. The lack of a remedy is due to the absence of political will to step into the GIS commons and give the problem the attention it deserves.

    Slide 12:EMERGING ISSUES for Local Government

    Local governments, as the primary authors of digital parcel map databases, are faced with some emerging challenges… Many private firms are taking the initiative to provide property based information and mapping on the Internet. As a result… Local governments can no longer exert control over access to the data they author. Local government Internet parcel viewers, once omnipotent, are now only one resource among many. The government niche for providing this kind of information on the Internet will narrow and perhaps disappear.

    Slide 13:EMERGING ISSUES for Local Government

    Data quality is of paramount importance. Local government still controls the quality of the data they author. They must work to ensure their data is of the highest quality as it is disseminated to a broader audience more removed from being able to determine the quality of the data. Local government will always be the best front line for improving data quality. Metadata can no longer be an afterthought. All data authored by local governments should be thoroughly documented. All attributes, characteristics, intended use, and limitations noted.

    Slide 14:CONCLUSIONS It all comes down to this…

    While controlling data access will diminish, local governments can shift the attention more to making sure their parcel map database is the most current, most accurate, most complete, and is supported by competent instructions and protocols.

    Carol Hall: Data Resource Center, Metro, Portland OR REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE Digital Parcel Map Database Standards The Regional Perspective is framed around the following topics: 1. What is Metro? 2. Metro Regional Parcel Map evolution  3. Local standards vs Regional standard  Regional standard vs State standard Data sharing  Use of the Parcel Map in the region

    Slide 16:CONTEXT Parcel Mapping in the greater Portland, Oregon area

    Metro – a regional government with a directly elected Council. There are over 562,000 parcels spread across 3 counties and 33 cities. Washington, Clackamas and Multnomah Counties. Unlike King County, all the parcel mapping is done by the County Assessors and/or GIS staff. The regional parcel map is created at Metro from the data provided by the counties. Regional Land Information System - RLIS

    Parcels for the 3-county region

    Slide 18:CONTEXT The Evolution of Metro’s Regional Parcel Map

    Metro had the first GIS in the region. The 3-county parcels were digitized using data from the electric utility. Metro collected digital data periodically from the assessor records. The assessors continued to maintain hardcopy tax maps according to state standards. There are state requirements for assessment records, but there are variations in the formats of the digital data.

    Slide 19:The State of MAP STANDARDS At the Regional Level

    Metro and regional partners set de facto GIS standards for the region. When the cities and counties developed their own GIS, Metro handed them the GIS data for their jurisdiction. For the most part, the original standards have been maintained. The formats of assessor data remain inconsistent. Metadata.

    Township Range Section Parcel # Record # Primary Unique Identifier

    Slide 21:

    Standardization of the Parcel Map occurs at Metro. Why? Unique format of State ID and Record numbers is preserved. Parcel data is collected, integrated seamlessly and distributed quarterly. The State of MAP STANDARDS At the Regional Level

    Slide 22:The State of MAP STANDARDS At the Regional Level

    State of Oregon GIS Framework – ORMAP. Providing regional parcels that conform to the state standard. Python script.

    Slide 24: Data Sharing At the Regional Level

    Data sharing is widely practiced in the Metro region. Handshakes to Intergovernmental Agreements and Data Licenses. Incentives.

    Slide 25:Users of Regional Parcel Data

    The Regional Parcel Data is distributed to ~170 subscribers of the RLIS Data. Governments, universities, NGOs, developers, title companies, utilities, NAVTEQ, etc. Web applications. Standard GIS data sets for the region.

    Slide 26:

    Carol Hall GIS Program Supervisor Data Resource Center Metro – Portland Oregon hallc@metro.dst.or.us www.metro-region.org

    Cy Smith: Oregon Geospatial Enterprise Office STATE PERSPECTIVE Digital Parcel Map Database Standards Oregon has a statewide cadastral data exchange standard A $1 fee on every real estate transaction funds cadastral data development Local government has statutory authority to charge market value for geospatial data State is pursuing partnership with local governments that will improve data sharing

    Slide 28:Oregon’s Cadastral Standard

    Data exchange standard developed through a lengthy consensus-building process Based on existing OR cadastral mapping standard and federal cadastral data content standard A shapefile with a parcel number field Optional real property table with parcel number field, limited assessment data Metadata for both

    Slide 29:ORMAP Cadastral Program

    Statutory program to develop a ‘land information system’ One dollar fee added to existing real estate transaction fees Four development phases, beginning with scanned tax lot maps and ending with positionally accurate GIS parcel polygons and database Phase 2 just completed, digital parcels with PINs available on Web, searchable by address Phase 4 scheduled for completion in 2008

    Oregon Framework Themes

    Slide 32:Cost Recovery in Oregon

    ORS 190.050 allows local governments, under certain conditions, to charge full market value for geospatial data that is managed within a GIS. To take advantage of law, local government must enter in to an intergovernmental agreement to share the data with at least one other jurisdiction. Only a handful of local governments take advantage of statute, but most want to maintain the potential revenue stream.

    Slide 33:Data Sharing Impediments

    In Oregon, there are two primary categories of data sharing impediments FUNDING Insufficient funding by government at all levels for development and maintenance. RISK Risk and liability for local government when data it developed is not in its control.

    Slide 34:Data Sharing Partnership

    Oregon Geographic Information Council and Association of Oregon Counties recently agreed to collaborate on development of a partnership agreement. Provide better services to the citizens Equitably share in decision-making about Framework development & maintenance Statutorily limit local government liability and risk regarding data sharing Identify and realize funding mechanisms for development AND maintenance of data

    Classic Private Sector Data Model Bumps and Grinds in the way of Easy Amalgamation. Re-Projecting Maps Joining GIS to Tax Rolls and Commercial Tax Records - ROW Annotation Naming Conventions - View Conventions Cleanest Version Emerging Most Common Practice Cadastral NSDI Reference Document – July 2006 Dennis H. Klein Boundary Solutions, Inc. PRIVATE/PUBLIC PERSPECTIVE Digital Parcel Map Database Development Standards for Broad Use Classic Data Model Entering an address and being returned a parcel map with - Subject parcel boundary in the center of the screen. - Display of linked tax record attributes - Street names displayed within ROW. Typical Countywide Seamless Parcel Database QUESTION … What are the Bumps and Grinds in the way of … QUESTION … What are the Bumps and Grinds in the way of doing this easily? BUMP AND GIND 1. No or Bad Map Projection Files Some deploy data without a projection description (i.e., .prj). Some deploy with a projection file but it is wrong because … the out-of-the-box digital parcel map does not re-project correctly. Some deploy without description file but state the projection in the supporting metadata record but it is wrong. FINALLY, some deploy with a correct description file and/or correct metadata. Hats off to you for eliminating a big bump and grind. Stanley County, NC TIGER FILE COUNTY BOUNDRY NAD83 Lat Long World Degrees Stanley County, NC With Parcel File Re-Projected to View it within the TIGER County Boundary. IF YES, Projection file Correct. IF NO, Projection file Needs Correction. BUMP AND GIND 1. No or Bad Map Projection Files BUMP AND GIND 2. No Street Annotation Many deploy with the digital street centerline map produced by the data sponsor agency. This eliminates the Bump and Grind of not having common protocols for street annotation. BUMP AND GIND 2. No Street Annotation When all locally produced street centerlines are available in universal format (SHP), then all maps can have high quality standard right-of-way annotation. Digital parcel maps require In-ROW annotation so that the display of the parcel boundaries is uncluttered by street annotation. BUMP AND GRIND 3. Not Able to join Tax Rolls to the GIS. Surprisingly, many jurisdictions have never thought to do this and when they try, they can’t, but is a must for map amalgamation. BUMP AND GRIND 4. Not Able to join Commercial Tax Records to the GIS. Much more often, APN/PID/PIN attribute protocols used by the GIS have no or little commonality with the one shared with financial institutions. BUMP AND GRIND 5. Inconsistent Theme / Layer Names Emerging Most Common Practice Theme 1. Parcels.shp Parcel Layer Theme 2. Roads.shp Street Annotation Layer (Row Annotation) Theme 3. County.shp County Boundary (quality assurance) BUMP AND GRIND 6. Inconsistent Field Names Emerging Most Common Practice APN PID/PIN/PARNO index field name (MANDATORY) Only mandatory field in Database Table. Equals values Assessor shares with title companies. FULLSITUS (NOT MANDATORY) Street Number, Street Name, City, Zip BUMP AND GRIND 7. Inconsistent View Conventions Emerging Most Common Practice Only one view. View name = Name of Jurisdiction (i.e., Montgomery County, MD) BUMP AND GRIND 8. Share Cleanest Version Post for download same data as used in GeoServer. Data “cleaned” for loading in data Sponsor’s Enterprise GeoServer posted for download by public to assure highest quality and easy loading in other GeoServers with minimal loss of parcel features. PRIVATE SECTOR INTERESTS Easy assemblage of multi-county spatial databases including joined tax record data. Statewide and National Cadastre suitable for supporting - Insurance Operations - Banking/Financing Operations - Appraisal / Investment Due Diligence Operations - Emergency Response / Remediation Operations - Others Cadastral NSDI Reference Document – July 2006 http://www.nationalcad.org/data/documents/Cadastral%20NSDI%20Reference%20Document%20v10.pdf 5.3 Cadastral NSDI – Parcels Elements of the Cadastral NSDI Parcels is as follows. Metadata - The metadata will contain information about the entire data set such as the - Data steward - Parcel contact - Basis for the assessment system (sale price, use, market value etc) - Version Date - Assessment classifications - Other Cadastral NSDI Reference Document – July 2006 5.3 Cadastral NSDI – Parcels Elements of the Cadastral NSDI Parcels is as follows. Parcel Outline (Polygon) - This is geographic extent of the parcel, the parcel boundaries forming a closed polygon. Parcel Centroid - This is a point within the parcel that can be used to attach related information. This may be a visual centroid or a point within the parcel. It may not be the mathematical centroid as this point needs to be contained within the parcel polygon. Parcel ID - A unique identifier for the parcel as defined by the data steward or data producer. The parcel identifier should provide a link to additional information about the parcel and should be unique across the data stewards geographic extent. Cadastral NSDI Reference Document – July 2006 5.3 Cadastral NSDI – Parcels Elements of the Cadastral NSDI Parcels is as follows. Source Reference - This is a pointer to, or an attribute describing, the source reference for the parcel. This could be a deed, plat, or other document reference. Source Reference Date - The date of the Source Reference, which is essentially the last update date for this parcel. The entire data set may have a last updated date or an “unloaded for publication” date that is different than the specific currency or update date for each individual parcel. Owner Type - The type of ownership is the classification of owner. In some local governments tax parcels are tagged as either taxable or exempt and the owner classification is not known. In these cases an owner types of taxable and exempt may be Improved - This is an attribute to indicate whether or not there is an improvement on the parcel. Cadastral NSDI Reference Document – July 2006 5.3 Cadastral NSDI – Parcels Elements of the Cadastral NSDI Parcels is as follows. Owner Name - An indication of the primary owner name, recognizing that there may be multiple owner names or that some owner names may be blocked for security reasons or that some jurisdictions may not allow the distribution of owner names. For publicly held lands the owner name is the surface managing agency, such a Bureau of Land Management, Department of Transportation, etc Assessment / Value for Land Information - This is the total value of the land only. The basis of the value, such as market value, resale value, sale price or use value should be described in the metadata. Assessment / Value for Improvements Information - This is the total value of improvements on the parcel. The basis of the value, such as market value, resale value, sale price or use value should be described in the metadata. Assessment / Value Total - This information is the total value of the land and.
More Related