• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content

Loading…

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

Like this document? Why not share!

ESRI UC Public

on

  • 367 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
367
Views on SlideShare
361
Embed Views
6

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 6

http://www.tftn.org 6

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    ESRI UC Public ESRI UC Public Document Transcript

    • ESRI UC<br />The TFTN Workshop/Panel at the ESRI UC was attended by 27 individuals, plus 9 speakers/panel members and TFTN Strategic Planning Team reps. Five members of the Steering committee were present, including Don Cooke (Executive Group), Gene Trobia (Executive Group), Skip Parker (NAVTEQ/At-Large), Randy Fusaro (Census Bureau/At-Large), and Eric Floss (ESRI, At-Large). The organizational breakdown of the 27 attendees was as follows:<br />The speakers and TFTN team members included:<br />SpeakerRepresentingSteve LewisTFTN Team Leader, USDOT GIORon VaughnFHWA/HPMSGene TrobiaNSGIC (AZ)John FarleyState DOT(NC)Val NoronhaResearch (NCGIA)Eric FlossSoftware Vendors (ESRI)Marc BerrymanEmergency Management (NENA)Todd BarrTFTN Team/KoniagRich GradyTFTN Team/AppGeo<br />There are short and long-term scenarios that may answer TFTN requirements with different approaches, as a function of time:<br />Short-Term: Nationwide datasets exist now that have seamless geometry and attributes, from both the public (i.e. TIGER) and private sectors (e.g. NAVTEQ, TeleAtlas), as well as the crowd-sourced OpenStreetMap (potential action: we should look at this more closely to more fully understand and characterize); the immediate advantages and disadvantages of each should be identified in concise terms, such as: frequency of updates; fulfillment of basic TFTN requirements (e.g., accurate geometry, basic attributes); and, release-ability to the public domain. <br />Long-Term: HPMS, with its established annual reporting requirements, could be modified to include geometry for all roads; also, funding and resource commitments would be required at the federal-level for edge-matching between states to achieve a seamless network, and adding TFTN attributes from other sources if not included with LRS geometry from the individual states, such as addresses.<br />While the initial focus is on centerlines for all roads, some consideration should be given in the current timeframe to other modes of transportation, to ensure future extensibility for multi-modal applications.<br />The rationale for requiring persistent segment ID numbering should be explained with an example (Don Cooke questioned the need for persistent IDs in a side conversation, based on his experience with adding, deleting, and modifying streets during quarterly updating at GDT and TeleAtlas).<br />The notional feasibility of transactional updates should be considered, in Don’s opinion (e.g. “what is the generic transaction that defines a TFTN update?”)<br />Answer the following question: “Why is the contemplated long-term approach of using HPMS as a feeder program for TFTN different from and preferred to what Census has done, or with what commercial data vendors are doing?” (Paraphrased from separate conversations with Don Cooke and John Farley.)<br />Randy Fusaro of Census Bureau challenged whether HPMS is a feasible and practical model for TFTN, and asked the question “What’s wrong with TIGER for TFTN?” She thinks that TIGER should be used as a starting point, not HPMS.<br /> There seemed to be a general consensus that “one size does not fit all,” and John Farley of NCDOT suggested we describe “3 or 4 process models” for the states to consider (our current position paper describes two).<br />On the potential for collaboration across federal agencies on TFTN (e.g. Census, USGS, and USDOT), how should this work? Randy Fusaro suggested that funding support could be shifted to Census as one scenario, since she feels they have been shouldering the cost burden of maintaining a nationwide street centerline dataset, even though it is used more broadly than for their own mission requirements.<br />Since there is a direct correlation between HPMS reporting and the apportionment of Federal Highway Aid to state governments (and, in turn, to local governments), the business requirement for reporting on HPMS roads is clearly understood by state and local entities, and has already resulted in a sustainable programmatic approach; leveraging this for all roads is very appealing from the perspective of Paul Tessar of the City and County of Denver, and formerly Colorado DOT -- and the annual reporting requirement for HPMS mitigates his concern over the frequency of TIGER updates, which are tied to the long-term cycles of the census-taking. <br />John Farley of NCDOT pointed out that HPMS is the business driver for road inventories across state DOTs, and it would be preferable if there was a single data call from one federal agency for the same data, rather than the way it currently works. This is true down to the local level. As well as the notion of “collect once, use many times,” we might add, “ask once for the same data, and share it once you get it.” Census collected road data from approximately 1700 counties (about 50% of total) to update TIGER, according to Randy Fusaro in response to a question from Chuck Matthys of USGS TNM Program.<br />