1 / 19

DRAPP 2012

DRAPP 2012. Agenda. Project Recap Lessons Learned (DRCOG) Results from the Survey Discussion of Final Thoughts for 2012 Discussion of the Upcoming 2014 Project Lessons Learned ( Kucera) (11:30 to 12:00). 2012 Stats. Who’s Involved? 50 Partners

kirra
Download Presentation

DRAPP 2012

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. DRAPP 2012

  2. Agenda • Project Recap • Lessons Learned (DRCOG) • Results from the Survey • Discussion of Final Thoughts for 2012 • Discussion of the Upcoming 2014 Project • Lessons Learned (Kucera) (11:30 to 12:00)

  3. 2012 Stats • Who’s Involved? • 50 Partners • 8 DRCOG Member Counties (only Arapahoe abstains) • 27 DRCOG Member Cities • 15 Regional Partners (e.g. RTD, CDOT, USGS, United Power) • What’s the extent? • 7,000 square miles

  4. 2012 Success • Image Quality = High • Flights = On time, good weather, “to spec” • Cost = Low compared to previous years • Participation = On the high end • WMS = Well-received “stop gap” solution (Final on 12/20) • Deliverables = 76% by last deliverable date (1/15)

  5. WMS Stats • 80% of partners use it frequently

  6. Lessons Learned • Clarifications in the Statement of Work: • Better explanation of where vendors should pay close attention for tall buildings (building lean). • Draw more attention to the delivery/distribution responsibilities of both vendors. • Simplify the deliverables. • Process Improvements: • Obtain Imagery and DAT approval at the SAME board meeting in December/January. February is a little late. • Reevaluate license agreement language to include WMS.

  7. Survey Results • 34% response rate • Overall experience = • 59% Very Good; 41% Good • DRCOG project management = • 76% Very Good; 24% Good • Cost = • 94% Reasonable; 6% Somewhat high

  8. Survey Results • Image Quality= • 76% Very Good, 18% Good, 6% Fair • Communication= • 71% Very Good, 29% Good • Delivery Times= • 41% Very Good, 41% Good, 12% Fair, 6% Poor

  9. Survey Results • Interest in Add-ons (ranked): • Permanent WMS • LIDAR Acquisition • Planimetric Features • Web Coverage Service • Other: Impervious Service

  10. Discussion

  11. Comments on 2012?

  12. Who ordered which projection? • SP CO Central, HARN (US Survey Feet) 8 • SP CO Central, NAD 83 (US Survey Feet) 24 • SP CO North, HARN (US Survey Feet) 10 • SP CO North, NAD 83 (US Survey Feet)5 • UTM Z13 North, NAD 83 (Meters) 3 • Could we standardize? • Can you project on-the-fly with ArcMap?

  13. What formats were ordered? • Compressed GeoTIFF 6 • Uncompressed GeoTIFF 21 • JPG2000 27 • MrSID 3 band 15 • MrSID 4 band 4 • Can we standardize? • Are all these formats necessary? • Does a permanent WMS or WCS change the need for certain formats?

  14. Permanent WCS • If we had a permanent WCS, would you consider not ordering imagery for the entire project area?

  15. Comments on 2014?

  16. LIDAR • How much would it cost? • What are our options? • What could we get from it? • Can you post-process by yourself?

  17. Next Meeting • August 28th • Gather requirements for DRAPP 2014 • Form the RFP review and vendor interview subcommittee

  18. Kucera’s Lessons Learned

  19. For more information, contact Ashley Summers at asummers@drcog.org or 303-480-6746.

More Related