1 / 18

MN Parcel Data Standard

MN Parcel Data Standard. State Standards Process and Useful Insights. DCDC 12/04/2009. Mark Kotz. Overview. State Standards Process Purpose Semantics Required vs. Optional Scope Metadata Attributes Implementation Considerations. State Standards Process. Existing Standards

tino
Download Presentation

MN Parcel Data Standard

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. MN Parcel Data Standard State Standards Process and Useful Insights DCDC 12/04/2009 Mark Kotz

  2. Overview • State Standards Process • Purpose • Semantics • Required vs. Optional • Scope • Metadata • Attributes • Implementation Considerations

  3. State Standards Process • Existing Standards • Codes for state • Codes for counties • Codes for cities, townships, unorgs • Codes for lakes and wetlands • Codes for reaches and watercourses • Codes for watersheds • Coordinate system interchange (State) • Positional accuracy reporting • Metadata • USNG

  4. State Standards Process • Typical Parts of Standard • Applicability: When does/doesn’t it apply? • Purpose • Requirements (specifics) • Compliance: What is it, How measured? • References & Resources

  5. State Standards Process • Driven by SMEs & stakeholders (e.g. your committee) • Start: Clear purpose for standard and defined stakeholders • Propose a draft (take the time needed) • Well thought out • Input from stakeholders • Preliminary approval by DCDC & Standards

  6. State Standards Process • Public review of draft • Must demonstrate: • Active review by stakeholders • Opportunity for review by all affected stakeholder groups (within reason) • Standards Committee • Post draft • Spearhead review in MN geospatial community • DCDC • Facilitate review outside geospatial community • Producers and users

  7. State Standards Process • Both: Document and respond to comments • Modifications may be needed • Propose final draft, addressing comments • Approval by Standards Committee • Approval by ? – Probably both MnGeo advisory groups? • Post on Standards and OET web sites

  8. Purpose • What is the purpose of your standard? • What do you hope to accomplish? • Who does it help? • How does it help them? • Who might it affected?

  9. Semantics Are Important • “Standard” can be viewed as unfunded mandate • “Guidelines” can be viewed as too weak • “Data Transfer Standard”: more palatable, often true purpose • No mandate for collection/storage • Just ability to convert to standard • Often has implications for collection/storage • “State Wide Parcel Dataset Specifications” • …and transfer standard?

  10. Required vs. Optional Aspects • Tie to purpose. Required for what purpose? • Examples: • All fields must be present and specified format • Fields X, Y and Z must be populated • Field X must comply with defined domain • Format affects this. E.g. XML more flexible than shape file

  11. Scope of Standard • Geography… attributes… • Projection or datum? May be good idea • MetroGIS had “issues” • So many transformation may be tricky • Precision requirements? No • “low” positional accuracy can be highly useful for many purposes • Very mandatish • Require description of positional accuracy?

  12. Metadata Requirements • Opinion: require some metadata • Is data suitable for a particular purpose? • Getting updates is challenging • Reserve right to use “none provided”? • Nancy Rader = excellent resource • Originator, contact info, time period, access & use constraints, positional accuracy description

  13. Attributes – What Balance? • A few attributes everyone has vs. lots of optional attributes many won’t include… now • MetroGIS • 5, then 29, now 65 • Many not populated • Completeness assessment www.datafinder.org/metadata/MetroGIS_Regional_Parcels_Attributes.pdf • Fixed domain vs. free text? • Potential use vs. realistic

  14. Implementation • Is “who” part of standard? • Business needs of data developers!!!!!!!!!! • Why should they spend any resources? • MetroGIS paid $4k to each county • Some may really want and use it voluntarily • Many will not have resources/political will • What resources are available to aid them? • Guidance • Money • Technical support

  15. Implementation • Just defining standard is very valuable if… • Well thought out • Input and buy-in from stakeholders • Clear purpose • Clear compliance rules • No perception of unfunded mandate • …even if it is not widely used right away.

  16. Resources • Existing State Geospatial Standards www.gis.state.mn.us/committee/stand/standards_adopted_devel.htm • MetroGIS 29 attributes www.datafinder.org/metadata/metrogis_regional_parcels_2002.htm • MetroGIS 65 attributes www.datafinder.org/metadata/metrogis_regional_parcels.htm • Attribute Completeness assessment (starts p.2) www.datafinder.org/metadata/MetroGIS_Regional_Parcels_Attributes.pdf • Minnesota Geographic Metadata Guidelines www.gis.state.mn.us/stds/metadata.htm

  17. Mark Kotz Metropolitan Council Chair, Standards Committee mark.kotz@metc.state.mn.us

More Related