Fall 2010 Jerry Sullivan


Published on

NSGIC and National GIS news

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • 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

Fall 2010 Jerry Sullivan

  1. 1. NSGIC 2007 was held in Madison !
  2. 2. Wisconsin
  3. 3. Wisconsin @ NSGIC 2010Chris Diller, GIS Manager, Wisconsin DMAJohn Ellingson, Wisconsin Geodetic Advisor, NOAA, NGSTravis Franz, Content Specialist, NAVTEQTed Koch, University of WI - MadisonJames Lacy, Associate State Cartographer, UW, SCOCurtis Pulford, State Geographic Information Officer, DOA, DETJerry Sullivan, GIS Data Specialist, Wisconsin DNRDr. Howard Veregin, Wisconsin State CartographerDick Vraga, USGS Geospatial Liaison for WisconsinAJ Wortley, Sr. Outreach Specialist, UW, SCO
  4. 4. This year’s top opportunities are: For the Nation Data Initiatives Address Points from Census Bureau Governance of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure Technology to Improve Government Effectiveness
  5. 5. Other Wisconsin NSGIC membersMichael Friis, Program Manager, WI Coastal Mgmt. ProgramDavid Mockert, Director State & Local Practice, GeoDecisionsDavid Moyer, Wisconsin Geodetic Advisor, NOAA, NGS (ret.)Kenneth J Parsons, IV, Chief, GIS Services, Wisconsin DNR
  6. 6. GeoPlatform.gov - Call to ActionIn 2010 and 2011, Federal data managers for geospatial data will move to aportfolio management approach, creating a Geospatial Platform to supportGeospatial One-Stop, place-based initiatives, and other potential future programs.This transformation will be facilitated by improving the governance framework toaddress the requirements of State, local and tribal agencies, Administration policy,and agency mission objectives.Investments will be prioritized based on business needs.The Geospatial Platform will explore opportunities for increased collaboration withData.gov, with an emphasis on reuse of architectural standards and technology,ultimately increasing access to geospatial data." President’s Budget, Fiscal Year 2011
  7. 7. Geospatial Platform Conceptual Model http://www.GeoPlatform.gov Improved Business Processes and OutcomesStreamlined Access to Resources NGOs, State Local Tribal Federal Private Volunteers, Academia Government Government Government Government companies Crowds * It is recognized that partner agencies may be both providers and customers of GeoPlatform.gov assets
  8. 8. GeoPlatform.govIt took only an estimated $480,000 to get the Geospatial Platform up and running.The open-source ERMA application, uses Google Maps for its layers, was expanded to accommodate 600 different data layers, many of which are updated in real time.The Geospatial Platform allows the public to search and display data about:• Oil spill trajectories near the shore.• Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment Team results.• Satellite interpretations for potential oil footprints. Field photos.• Wildlife observations. Closures of fisheries in federal and state waters.• Shoreline flight imagery from NOAA, NASA and EPA.• Navigational caution area for mariners. Data buoys.• Current environmental conditions.• Predicated environmental conditions.• Location of research and response vessels.• Related data, such as seafood safety, EPA monitoring and subsurface monitoring analytical chemistry.• The data is updated twice a day.In early June, Geospatial Platform was launched, public site received 3.5 million hits. Since then, it has had more than 4.8 million visitors.
  9. 9. Data Sharingwhat works… what doesn’tLynda Wayne, GeoMaxim/FGDCDr. Tim De Troye, SC GIS Coordinator
  10. 10. Background A Process Framework for Developing Local Government2008-2009 Data Access Policies • South Carolina Geospatial Administrators Association (SC GAA) Data Policy survey shows lack of data policies in local government2009 • SC GAA develops guidelines for the development of policies • SC GAA and GeoMaxim/FGDC survey national community as to successes and failures with regard to data policies • lessons learned compiled and guidelines drafted
  11. 11. For the record…Data sharing is valuable becausethe more data is used the: • better it gets via broader QA/QC • greater attention to your organization • more opportunities to leverage data • fewer competing data sets created • more complementary data sets created
  12. 12. Data Sharing SupportsEmergency Response If all sectors, public and private, can’t access critical information, lives can be lostEconomic Development If they can’t find about you – they can’t come spend/invest their moneyPlanning Bad decision-making by others can have far-reaching effects on your communityNavigation Systems / Online Mapping If the route is wrong – you get the blame
  13. 13. Data Sharing Issues Complicated Data Sharing Agreements Poor Data Documentation Limited Capacity and/or Infrastructure Personal Privacy and Public Safety Data Control Data Misuse and Exploitation Differing Perspectives
  14. 14. Special Thanks…Jim Steil Randy Johnson Anne PaynePat Bresnehan Kenny Miller Tom MorganAJ Wortley Patti Day Will CraigLearon Dalby Scott Samson Neil McGaffeyJim Sparks Phillip Worrall Joy PaulusJeff Brown Bob Nutsch Nancy von MeyerNC GICC SC GAA AR, MS, MD, NC, SC, WI
  15. 15. Data Sharing AgreementsWhat Works: • Handshakes and trust • Collaboratively developed, effective, standardized data sharing agreementsWhat doesn’t: • Formal agreements that include imprecise language, serve as road blocks to © The Simpsons innovative partnerships and add overhead • Over-involvement on the part of Administration and Legal staff that attempt AR, MS, MD, NC, to cover all the bases SC, WI
  16. 16. Poor Data DocumentationWhat Works: • Providing metadata creation and support in return for data access • Support for community- wide metadata training and resourcesWhat doesn’t: • Trying to create metadata for anothers data by guessing at NC, WI how the data were created
  17. 17. Balancing Right to Know and ConfidentialityWhat Works: • Data standards that address privacy and security issues • Edited/generalized versions that exclude sensitive content • Public Record Laws & Data Sharing Policies that address geospatial & establish guidelines as to who can access the data and how • Recognizing that very little data is truly ‘sensitive’ AR, MA, SC • FGDC Data Access Guidelines
  18. 18. FGDC Publication: Access to Geospatial Data in Response to Security Concernshttp://www.fgdc.gov/policyandplanning/Access%20Guidelines.pdf
  19. 19. Balancing Right to Know and ConfidentialityWhat Doesn’t: • Wholesale approaches that eliminate sharing of all ‘potentially’ sensitive data • Over-involvement on the part of Administration and Legal personnel that attempt to cover all the bases
  20. 20. Maintaining Data ControlWhat Works: • Earnest dialog about concerns and solutions • Data stewards / trusted sources • Data acknowledgement and lineage guidelines • Data management models that allow the use of data that is maintained in your systemWhat doesn’t: IN, LA, NC, MetroGIS, SC • Treating public data as a private resource
  21. 21. Data Misuse and ExploitationWhat Works: • Metadata, metadata, metadata with valid ‘Use Constraints’, ‘Distribution Liability’ and ‘Purpose’ statements • Clearly stated license/copyright requirements and mandatory acknowledgement by the consumer • Making data freely accessible so consumers use current versionWhat doesn’t: AR, MA, NC • Confusing misuse with innovation
  22. 22. Limited Data Sharing Capacity & Infrastructure What Works: • $ - especially if designated to build and maintain data sharing capacity (new data collection, hardware, software, training, etc) • A simplified process that adds no burden to the data provider • Documenting return on investment to warrant capacity building What doesn’t: • One time payments for data that are AR, IN, MA, MD, not tied to capacity building MetroGIS, SC, WA, WI
  23. 23. Differing PerspectivesWhat Works: • Approaching data providers with a proposal • Data consumers that inquire as to the data providers needs and bring something to the table: $, services, data… • Approaching data sharing as a cooperative partnership • A respected champion, Will Craig’s ‘White Knight’What doesn’t: • Demands for data MD, MSU, MetroGIS, NC, SC, WA, WI
  24. 24. South Carolina Example• Home rule state – counties retain power• FOIA – interpretation varies between state and local government• Many counties copyright/license data to users• Prior gov to gov sharing of roads and imagery• Views of gov to gov sharing varies by county
  25. 25. South Carolina – Building Relations• CAP grant outreach to local government• Build relationships first, ask for data second• Campaign on state uses of local data, stress benefits to local community members• Educate on importance of no data agreements• Explain benefits of streamlined access to state through data “collector” – minimize individual requests to counties
  26. 26. South Carolina – Expanding Sharing• Built on precedence of sharing centerlines• Created inventory of address points/parcels – many counties have points, most have parcels• Timeline: – After 1.5 years - asked for address points – Six months later - asked for parcels (any form) – Six months later – asked for parcels/CAMA
  27. 27. South Carolina Parcels Parcels StatusParcels Status Complete Waiting OK w Agreement Checking No Sharing Data Building No Parcels
  28. 28. South Carolina Address Points Address Points Status Address Points Status Complete - Address Points Waiting Complete - Parcel Centroids OK w Agreement Checking No Sharing Data Building No Points
  29. 29. South Carolina – Giving Back• Provide feedback on uses, caveats/stories• Provide state-maintained data improved by local data sharing• Provide ungeocoded addresses for QA/QC• Ask for local government involvement on projects that don’t involve money – continued demonstration of their value/expertise• Giving back encourages continued participation
  30. 30. South Carolina – Avoiding Barriers• Never pay for data, if not a joint project (imagery/LiDAR acquisition, etc.)• Educate on importance of avoiding agreements• NEVER ask local government to modify data – ESRI Data Interoperability Extension – Model Builder can do the work for you
  31. 31. South Carolina - Challenges• Must abide by local permissions granted – no sharing with Feds at this point due to fear of data getting pushed to public domain• Long timeline to effect a philosophy shift• Cannot force anyone to participate (a few hold outs) – incomplete data coverage for state• Maintaining relationships is labor intensive, but pays off
  32. 32. More info?• Lynda Wayne Lwayne@GeoMaxim.com• Tim De Troye detroyet@gis.sc.gov