Action items.
Action 1: To prepare for the January 6 Coordination Group meeting focusing on FGDC Future Directions, please review The Design Study Team Report (http://www.fgdc.gov/fgdc/dst511.doc ), the 1997 FGDC Strategic Plan (http://www.fgdc.gov/nsdi/strategy/strategy.html), and the revised OMB Circular A-16 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a016/a016_rev.html).
Action 2: If you would like to participate on the FGDC Future Directions writing team, please contact Alison (akiernan@fgdc.gov).
Action 3: If you would like to review the emergency response point symbology please visit www.fgdc.gov/HSWG between December 8 and January 31. Send comments regarding the emergency symbology, or invite other people to participate through Scott (Scott.McAfee@dhs.gov).
Action 4: Please contact Mark Reichardt (mreichardt@opengis.org) if you would like to attend the December 8 GovSIG meeting hosted by DOT/BTS that will focus on automated licensing, and the GOS transportation pilot.
Host: Leslie Weiner-Leandro, DHS
Attendees:
Ivan DeLoatch, FGDC Staff Director
Alison Kiernan, FGDC
Anne Frondorf, USGS
Richard Pearsall, USGS
Rob Dollison, GOS
Bonnie Gallahan, FGDC
Julie Maitra, FGDC
Anne O'Connor, Census
Carol Brandt, DOT/BTS
Michael Domaratz, USGS
John Clark, GSA
John Crowe, DHS
Leslie Weiner-Leandro, DHS
Connie Beard, Census
Tracy Corder, Census
Kaile Bower, Census
Scott McAfee, DHS/FEMA
William Eric Linzey, NOAA
April Avnayim, Census
Barry Napier, DHS
Sam Bacharach, OGC
Eddie Pickle, IONIC Enterprise
Donald Buhler, BLM
Christine Clarke, NRCS/USDA
Nancy Blyler, USACE
Billy Tolar, USGS/National Atlas
Rick Yorczyk, NOAA/NGS
Betsy Banas, USFS
Jon Sperling, HUD
Ed McKay, NOAA/NGS
Lee R. Warren, NGA (formerly known as NIMA)
Kim Owens, NOAA
Chuck Croner, CDC
John Moeller, Northrup Grumman
Kathy Covert, FGDC
Leslie Wollack, GOS
Mark Reichardt, OGC
Tim Trainor, Census
FGDC Future Directions Update - Ivan DeLoatch, FGDC Staff Director
The January 6 Coordination Group meeting will be a workshop devoted to the Future Directions activity. Please bring your ideas. Tricia Gibbons (LEAD Alliance) will facilitate this effort.
Action 1: To prepare for the January 6 Coordination Group meeting focusing on FGDC Future Directions, please review The Design Study Team Report (http://www.fgdc.gov/fgdc/dst511.doc), the 1997 FGDC Strategic Plan (http://www.fgdc.gov/nsdi/strategy/strategy.html), and the revised OMB Circular A-16 (http://www.fgdc.gov/publications/a16final.html).
Action 2: If you would like to participate on the FGDC Future Directions writing team, please contact Alison (akiernan@fgdc.gov).
The purpose of the Future Directions activity is to draft a national geospatial strategy and implementation plan for the FGDC to further the development of the NSDI. This includes developing an implementation plan for the revised OMB Circular A-16 and preparing answers for the GAO review on Federal coordination regarding geospatial data.
Samples of planned activities include workshops with the FGDC Secretariat Staff, ESRI Federal User Group meeting participants, the private sector, NSGIC mid-year meeting participants, and USGS manager meeting participants.
Q: When will the GAO review questions start coming to the agencies?
A: The preliminary review to scope the design came to the FGDC Secretariat. Agencies should see them in February; Elizabeth Roach (GAO) is heading the review. GAO has requested a list of agencies to contact.
Files: [ PowerPoint 893KB ]
Visioning Validation [ MS Word ] [ PDF ]
Homeland Security Working Group Update - Scott McAfee, DHS/FEMA
Two key activities the FGDC Homeland Security Working Group (HSWG) has pursued are, developing uniform point symbology for emergency response, and public access policies to geospatial data. The public access policies will be discussed at a Coordination Group meeting in late winter.
The point symbology effort began when Scott McAfee was with the California Department of Emergency Services and he realized uniform symbology was needed for emergency responders. When Scott came to FEMA he worked with Jeff Booth to develop a minimum set of symbols that were intuitive and worked well on both maps and computer monitors. They contracted Kent State to undertake a review of current symbology and in June 2002 compiled a report and made recommendations. The Homeland Security Working Group was formed after September 2001 and included a symbology subgroup that worked with the ongoing FEMA effort. Bill Burgess from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources/NSGIC has been involved - so this hasn't just been Federal-centric.
There are 3 tiers of symbols: Category, Theme, Feature (and Attribute) and they are being developed to become an accredited standard (working with the industry/GIS vendors). The FEMA external affairs office is coordinating with the State and local outreach office in DHS so ensure that emergency managers are contacted and give their opinion on these symbols.
Action 3: If you would like to review the emergency response point symbology please visit www.fgdc.gov/HSWG between December 8 and January 31. Send comments regarding the emergency symbology, or invite other people to participate through Scott (Scott.McAfee@dhs.gov).
Census built the symbols with a simple design that is intuitive and ensures quick recognition. Many symbols came from authoritative sources, while some were made from scratch. The University of Maryland Baltimore Campus (UMBC) cartographic lab was contracted for symbol development.
The HSWG will decide at their January meeting which accreditation path to follow (FGDC, ANSI, ANSI through SDSFIE, or ISO).
A separate but parallel implementation plan, EMSYS, will help develop symbols on the fly in the future. EMSYS, developed by OGC and funded by NIMA and FEMA, will mature specifications for emergency systems by using two separate symbol sets (military and HSWG symbols).
Q: Why just point symbols, not polygons?
A: Keeping it small and simple, will use polygons in future through annual update.
Q: Would they be interested in including volunteer firemen in Fairfax and Loudon counties in the review?
A: Yes, Rick Pearsall (USGS) can coordinate this with Scott McAfee if he wishes.
Mike Domaratz thanked Kaile Bower, Connie Beard, and Tracy Corder and the Census Geography Division who participated on this symbology effort and presented them with awards.
MAF/TIGER Modernization - Tim Trainor, Census
The Census Geography Division provides geographic support for mapping, geocoding and address work. The Topographical Integrated Geographic Reference System (TIGER) was relatively accurate for the work involved during the 1990 and 2000 Censuses. However technology has progressed and now TIGER needs to be more positionally accurate. TIGER includes digital street line files, roads, geocodes, hydrography, address ranges, and key geographic locations. The Master Address File (MAF) includes mailing addresses, descriptions, census geographic locations and source and history data. MAF is a good example of working temporal data - they track everything that happens to an address and don't throw anything away. In 2000 MAF and TIGER were linked but separate.
The creation of TIGER helped spawn the GIS industry in the U.S. by providing data. But TIGER data is variable and inconsistent because it comes in from varying sources and different scales. Metadata is important to know the quality of the information. Feature level metadata needs to be developed. TIGER boundary information will support The National Map. TIGER was built before the GIS industry existed so it was created through computer code. Those that wrote the code are no longer with Census and this method should be replaced.
Census has a regular update program for address information and an annual boundary and annexation survey. Block maps for the entire U.S. are available on the Census website for street level data. Census provides support to OMB initiatives like GOS, but needs TIGER implementation to participate.
5 Objectives
- Get correct locations by 2008 for 2010 Census (street centerlines)
- Improve processing environment, moving to COTS
- Partnerships with State, local and tribal governments
- Improve Address Updating System for rural addresses
- Improve evaluation process - check work along the way, not just final product
TIGER Enhanced Database (TED) is a robust database that is updated everyday and determines which local data source files can be used.
Q: Given the enormous costs of TIGER and redundancies is there some way to move towards standardized street centerline files for one-stop shopping for everyone in the nation? A national standard that will be embraced by the industry as well?
A: Census's driving forces are their mission and timeline. Census makes its data public and provides a mechanism for anyone to participate in the process. Census will take anything from anybody. If a private data source had more accurate data, Census would use it. But a lot of commercial data originated from TIGER data, and Census doesn't want that back.
Q: How does this effort link with BTS's effort on the transportation standard?
A: TIGER is an input to the NSDI, concentrating solely on road centerlines, attributes and boundaries. This data is coded according to Census requirements. Census will accept transportation codes but won't maintain that data. Just as Census will bring in the National Hydrographic Dataset codes but won't maintain that data. Census maintains only the information it serves for Census mission needs. The GOS road standard is minimal and Census has more information that can be matched that GOS standard. But transportation agencies don't usually use TIGER data.
Q: Federal agencies use different transportation data sets that are difficult to reconcile. Is there any effort to look at incentives to get the public and private sector to work from a common geometry?
A: Census is trying to be aggressive in its action plan and if it stays on track it will be success. The NSDI is the data set that needs to be built to make the common geometry happen. We are all contributing to the inputs and the NSDI will be improved through time.
Q: Is Census contracting through GDT or Navtech to maintain transportation data?
A: No private companies have wall to wall coverage (including Alaska and Puerto Rico) because they put their money where the business is. Census is only interested in contractors' results, not the process. They look at a lot of options, just choose the best one.
Open GIS Consortium (OGC) Update - Mark Reichardt, OGC
There is now a widespread market acceptance and implementation of OGC specifications. Over 60 industry products now use the Web Mapping Service Specification. The OGC web pricing and ordering service will have an extension that will work on web licensing. The Web Mapping Cookbook has been out for a year and the UN uses this in training. A Web Feature Service (WFS) Cookbook will be available by February 04. OGC Reference Architecture Documents are available now for Enterprise Architecture. OGC worked on the collaborative effort called EMSYS to support the maturation of style management capabilities for emergency management symbology. Other activities can be viewed at the OGC website.
The Enterprise Architecture Special Interest Group (EASIG) is supported by DISA and is open to OGC members and nonmembers. EASIG is looking an interoperability experiments and transactional licensing. There is an institutional separation between Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) and EASIG but they need to come together.
GovSIG meets regularly and is open to OGC members and nonmembers.
Action 4: Please contact Mark Reichardt (mreichardt@opengis.org) if you would like to attend the December 8 GovSIG meeting hosted by DOT/BTS that will focus on automated licensing, and the GOS transportation pilot.
Also please do not say you are OGC compliant unless it has been through compliance testing, as OGC is trademarked.
Files: [ PowerPoint 1.89MB ] [ PDF 1.37MB ]
Next Coordination Group meeting:
January 6, 2003
Hosted by NRCS/USDA
(Location will be forwarded in late December. This meeting will focus on FGDC Future Directions.)