1 / 18

Virtual Data Integration Research Project

Virtual Data Integration Research Project. A joint research project by: UW-Madison’s State Cartographer’s Office UW-Eau Claire’s Dept. of Geography & Anthropology. LION Meeting, May 2012. Research Project Focus.

gigi
Download Presentation

Virtual Data Integration Research Project

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

  1. Virtual Data Integration Research Project A joint research project by: UW-Madison’s State Cartographer’s Office UW-Eau Claire’s Dept. of Geography & Anthropology LION Meeting, May 2012

  2. Research Project Focus • Examine feasibility of integrating existing county Web map services into a single online map • Initially, the focus is on parcel services • Create a statewide view of geospatial data collected and maintained at the county level

  3. Research Questions • How much flexibility exists to resymbolize map services from different counties? • What are the limitations on querying and analysis, given data models and attributes are not consistent from county to county? • How much of an issue is performance? • Can both commercial and open-source services be integrated?

  4. A Different Approach! Can be used for any type of geospatial data, not just parcels. Using Web services means we will be displaying the most up-to-date data from the most authoritative source (i.e., the counties). Does not require counties to contribute a copy of their data. Instead, we access services that have already been published online. No stitching, edgematching, rubbersheeting needed. Users will NOT be able to download data.

  5. Current Status Most counties use Esri’sArcGIS Server technology. ArcIMS services are still widely used, although many counties indicate they are migrating to ArcGIS Server. Small number of counties use non-Esri technology, i.e., open source Web Map Services.

  6. Map services responding Map services loading Map services may not respond

  7. Map service unavailable Map services loaded for access Map service unavailable

  8. Parcel Data Integration using Map Services Washington County Ozaukee County Waukesha County Milwaukee County

  9. County Line Waupaca County Outagamie County

  10. County Line Waupaca County Outagamie County

  11. County Line Outagamie Brown

  12. County Line Outagamie Brown

  13. Pop-up Attributes customizable Washington County Ozaukee County Washington County Ozaukee County Washington County Ozaukee County Washington County Ozaukee County Washington County Waukesha County Milwaukee County Waukesha County Milwaukee County Milwaukee County Waukesha County Milwaukee County Waukesha County

  14. Statewide Data Alternatives Not all data is created equal. DOT’s WISLR is not a bad dataset. It meets DOT needs quite well. Unfair to say that it is bad data because it doesn’t meet everyone else’s needs. Every agency/group producing geospatial data does this in a way to meet their business needs. Why would they do anything else??? This is the same issue counties face except their business needs are defined by county boundaries.

  15. Statewide Data Alternatives We will never have datasets that meet everyone’s needs unless there is a mandate and funding to do so. This needs to happen across state agencies not within an agency. This is a long-term goal. Let’s differentiate “integrated” data (WLIA project) from a “mosaic” (our project). Any integrated project must account for multiple requirements if it is going to be useful. Includes, e.g., dealing with multiple rep’s of the same features in different counties.

  16. Statewide Data Alternatives Proposal: If we want a repository of “statewide data” let’s start with a collection of local datasets, rather than trying to go to the next step and build integrated layers. It would require only buy-in from counties to agree to general data sharing agreements. At this time, users would be responsible for integrating data for their own purposes.

  17. Who Benefits? PLSS and parcels are the basis of land ownership descriptions -- vital to ownership rights for every property in Wisconsin. PLSS and parcels are critical for many activities that cross county boundaries – from emergency management to economic development. Who benefits? Geospatial professionals – demonstrating ROI (Return on Investment) for the cost of developing and maintaining geospatial data. The county – by being an active participant in a statewide integration effort that will have impacts beyond the county boundaries. Citizens and taxpayers – by seeing maximum utilization of investments they have paid for and obtaining bigger benefits through more effective and efficient governance!

  18. Questions? Martin Goettl, goettlm@uwec.edu Brenda Hemstead, hemstead@wisc.edu Howard Veregin, veregin@wisc.edu

More Related