The Colorado North Central All-Hazards Region, including the Denver Metropolitan region, required a set of standard processes to share spatial data, as well as a set of core technologies to facilitate that data sharing, in support of regional emergency planning and response activities. Critigen enabled the required capabilities using a suite of technologies including FME.

1. Case Study:
Enabling Regional Interagency
Spatial Data Sharing using FME
Daniel Feinberg
Senior Business Analyst, Critigen

2. Agenda
 Introductions
 Background and drivers for the project
 Collecting information
 Application design
 System architecture
 Challenges
 Benefits
 Next steps
 Future applications

3.  Critigen
 Safe Software
 The Colorado North Central All-Hazards
Region
 Member Counties
Introductions
Boulder
Adams
ElbertDouglas
Clear Creek
Broomfield
Arapahoe
Jefferson
Gilpin
Denver

4. Project Background
 Emergency management planning focus
 Need for continuous region-wide dataset
 Coordination with member counties hard to
achieve
 Homeland Security grant for 2008-2011

5. Collecting Information
 10 counties, all with different needs, desires,
agendas, and data sharing policies

6. Collecting Information
 10 very different data schemas, from the very
simple to the very complex
Shapefiles
Coverages
PGDB

7. Collecting Information
 Everything decided by committee,
consensus difficult to reach
 Prototype application with 8 spatial
data layers
 Roads
 Parcels
 Census Blocks
 Municipalities
 Lakes
 Streams
 Fire stations
 Schools
Plus one non-spatial layer to
support one-to-many
relationships
Parcel Owners

8. Collecting Information
 NCR data schema developed to house
translated data sets
Feature classes,
attributes, and
domains need to be
mapped and
translated

9. Application Design
 ESRI ArcGIS Server web-based mapping
application

10. Application Design
 SQL Server 2008 ArcSDE database
 Password-protected web application

11. Data Upload
Custom created
web pages
assemble required
FME Server
request strings
Upload Page

12. Data Upload
 FME Server translation
 Based on 10 FME upload workspaces
Arapahoe County Upload

13. Data Upload
Arapahoe County Upload

14. Data Upload
Upload Schema Mapping

15. Data Upload
 Custom created web pages assemble required
FME Server request strings
Typical Upload Request
https://www.gis.ncrcolorado.org/SpatialDirect/tran
slationServlet?SSFunction=getUploadStatus&reqID=12015
361025840.7794552208857219

16. Data Download
Custom created
web pages
assemble required
FME Server request
strings
Download Page

17. Data Download
 FME Server translation
 Based on 11 FME download workspaces
Arapahoe County Download

18. Data Download
Parameters
Point & Buffer
Extents
County
Municipality

19. Data Download
 Download Area Options
 By Area – Drag a rectangle, define on map
 By Point and Buffer, define on map
 By Municipality – clip polygon
 By County – by County field in attribute table
 Schema Options
 10 different counties plus NCR master schema
 Coordinate System Options
 UTM, 4 different state plane, LL NAD83
 Layer Options
 Select any and all available data layers

20. Data Download
 Custom created web pages assemble required
FME Server request strings
https://www.gis.ncrcolorado.org/SpatialDirect/translationS
ervlet?SSFunction=remoteFetch&format=Download_Arapa
hoe.fmw&fmeParams= --selectedThemes "" --boxMinX --
boxMaxX --boxMinY --boxMaxY --queryType
POINTBUFFER --pointXcoordinate 493412.821 --
pointYcoordinate 4406154.604 --countyName --cityName
--radius 53019 --destinationCoordSys UTM83-13
Typical Download Request

21. Workflow Overview
Upload
Download

22. System Architecture
 Two servers, one primary, one redundant
 Hosted at disparate county locations
 Douglas County – Primary
 Denver County - Redundant
 Automated replication between servers
 XLink ClusterReplica Pro replication software
 Automated failover between the servers
 DNS Made Easy

23. Challenges
 Decision by committee
 Lack of previous coordination between counties
 Disparities in GIS sophistication
 Need to better define and monitor uploading
schedules for the ten member counties
 Expanding scope of project to agencies outside of
emergency management focus has required:
 Review of data sharing agreements
 Modifications to accommodate disparate user
groups
 What to add next… who has what?

24. Benefits
 Unique planning tool with continuous region-wide
dataset
 FME allows quick updates to accommodate provider
schema changes
 FME supports easy expansion of system to include
different data inputs (non-spatial) and data schemas
 “Forced” dialog between counties promotes better
coordination
 Edge matching
 Data schema consolidation
 Serves as a model for inter-region and state wide
coordination

25. Next Steps
 Phase II wrapping up
 Added 10 additional data layers
 Additional user roles – data views
 Improved existing data layers
 Phase III starting up
 Facilitate counties working together to
edge match street centerlines
 Add more viewer functionality
 Geocoding service
 Advanced “one-click” spatial queries

26. Future Applications
 Other Colorado all-hazards regions
 DRCOG and other MPOs
 State of Colorado

27. QUESTIONS?
More information:
Daniel Feinberg: daniel.feinberg@critigen.com
Frank Orr: frank.orr@critigen.com
Scott Kellar: SKellar@co.arapahoe.co.us
Dominick Cisson: DCisson@co.arapahoe.co.us
www.critigen.com
Thank You!