GISG 114 Geodatabase Project


Published on

Published in: Technology, Travel
1 Comment
  • projet cartography of information geographical
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

GISG 114 Geodatabase Project

  1. 1. GISG 114<br />GEODATABASE<br />PROJECT: <br />DEVA Archaeology<br />Designed by: Janelle Harrison<br />
  2. 2. DESIGNING THE GEODATABASE<br /> I wanted to integrate properties from the geodatabase I worked in for California State Parks and from Death Valley National Park; yet modify that which I didn’t like in both.<br />Archaeological data collection based on codes for Cultural Resources:<br />State of California has unique set of codes<br />NPS has specific codes and terminology <br />
  3. 3. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS<br />NPS archaeologists need specific data collected in the field to complete online Archaeological Site Information Management System (ASMIS) forms.<br />ASMIS is NPS archaeological record keeping system<br />All archaeological sites must have a state site record on standard DPR forms<br />I based my domains & subtypes on the codes used for both ASMIS and DPR forms<br />
  4. 4. CALIFORNIA SITE RECORDS<br />INSTRUCTIONS FOR RECORDING<br />HISTORICAL RESOURCES<br />Office of Historic Preservation<br />P.O. Box 942896<br />Sacramento, CA 942196-0001<br />I USED APPENDIX 4: RESOURCE ATTRIBUTE CODES<br /> for my coded values <br />
  5. 5. Resource Attribute Codes<br />
  6. 6. NPS RESOURCE CODES<br />The National Register for Historic Places (NRHP).<br />State of California uses the NRHP status coded for Standard DPR site records<br />State & Federal use BSO (Building, Structure, Object) for Historic <br />I used the NRHP Architectural Styles as coded values for my BSO_Style domain <br />
  8. 8. ORIGINAL DEVA GEODATABASE<br />Everything was placed into 3 categories (the geodatabase does not have feature datasets):<br />SITES<br />CULTURAL<br />INVESTIGATIONS<br />Each category contains a point, line and polygon features class<br />VERY GENERAL- not a lot of choice in the coded domains for better field data collection & data management in the geodatabase; no subtypes<br />
  9. 9. DEVA_ARCH<br />
  10. 10. DEVA_ARCH<br />The Geodatabase design used mostly “TEXT” Field Types for the feature class domains<br />The domains were limited in descriptive dropdown fields and rarely represented the types of sites/artifacts and features found in Death Valley<br />Or as classified by the California Office of Historic Preservation<br />
  11. 11. DEVA_ARCH<br />The lack of useable coded domains or subtypes and no real subtypes other than ERA left little options in specification during map production and when querying data from attribute table<br />
  12. 12. MY GEODATABASE DESIGN<br />I created most of my Domains as SI <br />I created coded values to chose from in most “descriptive” fields i.e. artifact type, building type, feature type and used the resource codes used on DPR Site Records and ASMIS/ NRHP codes so that data can be queried by these codes, site records can be completed more efficiently and NPS employees working in California can learn DPR site record coding while working in the field collecting data <br />
  13. 13. DEVA ARCHAEOLOGY<br />
  14. 14. GEODATABASE DESIGN<br />I created categories based on archaeological classification and data collection standards and grouped each of the categories Feature Classes (usually one feature class for each geometry) into datasets.<br />I created a Mosaic Dataset of the 8 MrSid USGS Topos that are used for the base map of the Park<br />I created a representation for the Park Boundary Feature Class & the Roads FC.<br />I added several other representations to several other Feature Classes<br />
  15. 15. DOMAINS & CODED VALUES<br />
  16. 16. DOMAINS & CODED VALUES<br />
  17. 17. DOMAINS IN ARCMAP EDIT SESSION<br />The drop down fields that are available in ArcMap are also available in the Field- the attributes can be recorded in the field and/or updated in an ArcMap session<br />
  18. 18. DOMAINS IN ARCMAP EDIT SESSION<br />The drop down fields contain descriptive attributes to select from in ArcMap or in the field<br />
  19. 19. DOMAINS IN ARCMAP EDIT SESSION<br />The drop down fields contain descriptive attributes to select from in ArcMap or in the field.<br />There is also a DESCRITION FIELD that allows the user to type in a description/comment<br />
  20. 20. DOMAINS IN ARCMAP EDIT SESSION<br />The Domains coded values are the same codes used on standard DPR site records<br />
  21. 21. DOMAINS IN ARCMAP EDIT SESSION<br />The Domains coded values are the same codes used on standard DPR site records<br />At first I was only going to enter codes that would most likely be found in Death Valley and not add those most likely not to be found, such as a shipwreck or a Lighthouse but then decided to enter all codes so that the user could become familar with all of them and to not have “gaps” in the codes.<br />
  22. 22. DOMAINS & CODED VALUES<br />Each Feature Class contains a Subtype of “ERA”:<br />Prehistoric, Protohistoric, Historic, Modern or Unknown Subtype ERA will display in ArcMap. Further classification is by coded values in the Domains set in the Geodatabase as USE or TYPE<br />These FC’s include:<br />Artifacts, BSO, Features & Sites<br />
  24. 24. RELATIONSHIP CLASSES<br />I created a relationship Class between the PhotoPoint FC & a table containing images so that when the info button is selected in ArcMap and the PhotoPoint is clicked on, the photos are linked and can be viewed right from ArcMap!<br />I also created a representation for the PhotoPoint Symbol- it will always load into ArcMap as the symbol I selected/created <br />
  25. 25. GEODATABASE TOPOLOGY<br />BSO, FEATURE & SITE FC’s have Polygon Topology Rules to prevent Polygon overlapping.<br />
  26. 26. CONCLUSION<br />IN THE PROCESS OF DESIGING AND BUILDING AND FINALLY TESTING MY GEODATABASE DESIGN:<br />I have concluded that this design is much more functional for a National Park then the geodatabase I worked with previously but,<br />I also found several areas that could be improved! <br />