OpenStreetMap – Project Haiti
We all followed the crisis that unfolded following the 2010 Haiti earthquake, many of us chose to donate money, a few were flown out and deployed as part of the relief effort. But what practical impact can many have without being there in Haiti itself? Well, during this crisis a remarkable story unfolded; of how people around the world could virtually collaborate and contribute to the on-the-ground operations. Read more
IT Is Suffocating GIS
In an article “Why Geo Will Embrace The Cloud in 2010” in Direction Magazine, Brian Timoney of the The Timoney Group looks at the emerging cloud computing arena and poises the question, fad or not? Putting that question aside for the moment, part of Brian’s article really struck a chord with me – “IT is suffocating GIS.” As a former statewide GIS coordinator, I’ve seen all too many enthusiastic GIS professionals sucked down this path. Brian articulates something rarely discussed – issues like burn-out in the long since changed role of GIS managers. Are we properly preparing GIS professionals for this aspect of their GIS career? Here is an excerpt of Brian’s article: Read more
Allen sits out statewide digital map
by Ron Shawgo, The Journal Gazette Read the Full Story Here
A plan that officials say could save lives and improve economic development, disaster response, transportation, water quality and natural resources is receiving near statewide support – but not from Allen County.Read the Full Story
Fresh Face for the IndianaMap
With many partners and large volunteer effort, access to the IndianaMap has historically been a bit disbursed. The new IndianaMap portal helps bring the effort under one roof providing a fresh face and a truly collaborative web site for all the partners. Kudos!
Whose Public?
Alternate title: “The Need For Spatial Data Infrastructure in a Sea of Data”
In full disclosure, this is a soap-box issue of mine. I’ve long been a vocal advocate of open public data in the geospatial arena. The “open” provides us all the opportunity to build common spatial data infrastructures so critical to addressing public, private, and broader societal needs. In questioning “whose public?” I’m expressing concern that even with the most open of data we may yet be compounding vital problems regarding a critical goal of spatial data infrastructures: authoritative and consistent data. Consistency is key in my humble opinion.
One needs only to look so far as pleas such as in Jonathan Feldman’s recent article “How To Fix The GIS Data Mess” to see how consistent data shared among all potential users is much needed and desired. In my own experience, beyond accuracy and unfettered access to geospatial data, consistency of those data among users is critical. When agencies and organizations rely on geospatial data for critical decision making and those data differ, the decisions based on those data will necessarily differ, notwithstanding the best intentions. Is it emergency responders and non-profit agencies looking at different authoritative data sources to deploy rescue efforts to your pets and family members? Is it the construction crew, development company, city, and recreational group looking to difference data sources when trails are cleared for that latest building project? Data consistency is vital – for public safety and for the public interest. Consistency (and with it I’m implying shared maintenance) is key to helping control costs.
I am a big fan of efforts such as Open Street Map (OSM) in democratizing geospatial data. This is an effort to be applauded. Clearly the sweeping early success of such effort, particularly in those areas of the world where geospatial data are less public than the US, demonstrates that people are ready and eager to create and support open data sources; I am myself. But I lend a word of caution as well… What do we do when other authoritative data that are open already exist? How do we determine authoritative? How do we share maintenance? These questions remain largely unanswered.
Members of the National States’ Geographic Information Council (NSGIC) are working with public and private organizations at all levels to address these very questions. In Indiana for example, the community is working together to overcome institutional obstacles and build a statewide spatial data infrastructure that is open and consistent (see the Indiana Geographic Information Council). Local agencies are providing data publicly, such as street centerlines and parcel boundaries, and the state is integrating and publishing rather than duplicating those efforts. The state is contributing as well, not only through coordination and infrastructure, but also with statewide data sets such as aerial photography that make sense to maintain at a broader scale. And the effort doesn’t stop there. With university participation, those data are made public (view and download) through the IndianaMap. They are provided to federal agencies, such as U.S. Census for map modernization. In recognition that not everyone comes to government sources for their decision-making, statewide aerial photography (2005) was shipped to Google and Microsoft to integrate into their map services.
Such a model holds out a glimmer of hope that statewide, national, and international spatial data infrastructures are not only possible, but also within reach. However, even with such open data, when the process is ill-defined and under-funded we may miss the target. How, for instance, will the IndianaMap data be incorporated into other open source efforts the likes of OSM? With a desire by all parties, how might maintenance be addressed? These questions remain unanswered.
We must continue to strive for solutions which focus on process. Consistent data are key in the potential for geospatial data to solve problems at the most local to the most global of scales. While I agree any data may be viewed as better than no data at all, a preponderance of inconsistent data may prove no better with regard to vital issues. There are inherent problems when local data (cities and counties) differ from state data, differ from federal, private, non-profit, and open data. This is where a National Spatial Data Infrastructure is necessary.
Natural Earth Vector to be Unveiled at NACIS
If you’ve ever tried to find good, authoritative sources of free, public domain small-scale world data you know it can be a daunting task. But not for long. Natural Earth Vector is coming and it will be a boon for geographers, cartographers, and GIS folks working from regional to world scales (small scale). I’ll predict it will also have tremendous impact in the geography education arena, where it is much needed.
This dataset will allow you to make beautiful and authoritative political and physical world maps quickly – from the large wall map variety down to postcard size. Instead of spending time looking for data, you will be able to focus on using the map to tell your geographic story. You will be able to map at the continent and country levels (including showing provinces and some local cities, regional, and “world” cities). The data will be fully attributed and we get into the nitty gritty details like disputed boundaries & tiny ocean islands and the beautiful with hypsometric tints & relief shading.
Tom Patterson and Nathaniel Kelso collaborated on the precursor to his first Natural Earth Raster project several years ago and they now preview Natural Earth Raster + Vector, a new free product that complements and expands on the previous work by providing detailed GIS linework at the 1:15,000,000 (1:15 million) scale and new versions of the raster product (including cross-blended hyspometric tints). The project will be unveiled at the 2009 North American Cartographic Information Society (NACIS) annual meeting on October 7th.
From “First Look at Natural Earth Vector.” This is a NACIS and mapgiving co-branded product with assistance from the University of Wisconsin-Madison cartography lab, Florida State University, and others. You can read more updates on the project at Kelso’s Corner.
$1.7 Billion Supported by the IndianaMap – A GIS Return on Investment
! For more information, see the complete report. !
From transportation to public safety to economic development, the IndianaMap supports hundreds of local, regional and statewide projects each year. The IndianaMap was used for response and recovery during this year’s major flooding, tornado, and earthquake events, Honda’s selection of Indiana for its new facility, and much more. Stories documenting how the IndianaMap is used are presented throughout this report. Phase one of the IndianaMap is complete and the results are in—the initial investment of $8.5 million in the IndianaMap supports over 200-times its value in projects and operations—with 90% of users indicating they could not do their projects without it. As is evident from this study, the IndianaMap proves a good investment by saving taxpayer dollars and providing an information infrastructure that benefits all Hoosiers.
86% indicated that IndianaMap orthophotography was essential to their operations.
Still there are many challenges to completing and maintaining the IndianaMap. Conflicting interpretations of [slider title="“electronic map”"]The meaning of “electronic map” as set forth in Indiana Code 5-14-3-2(d).[/slider] and confusion surrounding[slider title=" the validity of copyrighting factual data "]Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)[1], commonly called just Feist v. Rural, was a United States Supreme Court case in which Feist had copied information from Rural’s telephone listings to, include in its own, after Rural had refused to license the information. Rural had sued for copyright infringement. The Court ruled that information contained in Rural’s phone directory was not copyrightable, and that therefore no infringement existed.[/slider]result in inconsistent access to electronic map data. Non-standard maps present technical obstacles to data integration. The importance of multi-jurisdictional data providers (local, region, state and federal) is not well recognized. But perhaps most significantly, Indiana’s Legislature has not allocated funding specifically for support and maintenance of the IndianaMap. To help address these issues and justify future financing of the IndianaMap, IGIC answers the question “What are the economic and use-benefits of the IndianaMap?” ‘Economic value’ is taken to mean the contribution that the IndianaMap makes to Indiana’s economy as a provider of geographic information.
Like roads and bridges, the IndianaMap is part of a public infrastructure that is a longterm investment in Indiana’s future. There are hundreds, potentially thousands of IndianaMap users. Truly a public good, anyone can access it, anonymously, through a web viewer (e.g.,
www.indianamap.org and www.maps.google.com), through data download websites, off-line at public libraries, and other public access points. Because the users are widespread, it is difficult to estimate the total user base. All Hoosiers benefit through the money it saves taxpayers, as well as improved quality of life through better-managed resources, transportation, and business. For this study, input was sought from a known user base (those who are registered with the IndianaMap download sites and email distribution lists) through an appropriately designed questionnaire with the following objectives:
The results of the survey clearly indicate that over $1.7 billion in Indiana projects and government operations are supported by the IndianaMap. Meeting these objectives will help plan for future mapping projects and assess the IndianaMap in qualitative as well as monetary terms.
METHODOLOGY
The questionnaire had nine questions implemented through an online survey tool. The response rate to the survey was encouraging and exceeded commonly accepted response rates in marketing surveys. For the purposes of this study we make an estimation of total users based on a sample of 1521 registered users on the University Information Technology Services at Indiana University’s download site for the IndianaMap Orthophotography. These users download and use IndianaMap data on their own systems. They include government regulators, engineers, utilities, realtors, appraisers, mining companies, researchers, planning officials, and teachers. Three hundred fourteen (314) responses were received from May to July of 2008. This is a 20% response rate (approximately +/- 6% margin of error3) and is nearly four times the rate [slider title="considered acceptable"]Van Bennekom, F. (2003) www.greatbrook.com[/slider] in the marketing industry.
Because the IndianaMap has many different users, as well as emerging and unknown new uses and repeated uses over time, placing a quantitative valuation on it is an extremely complex problem. Our approach is similar to that taken by mineral economists’ [slider title="Bhagwat and Ipe"]Bhagwat, S.B., and Ipe, V.C. 2000. The economic benefits of detailed geologic mapping to Kentucky. Illinois State Geological Survey Special Report 3, 39 p.[/slider] in their pioneering report “Economic Benefits of Detailed Geologic Mapping to Kentucky.” Their approach is a retrospective study to first estimate the value to an individual map user and then to extend that value to all the possible map users over time to get an estimate of the aggregate
benefits of a mapping program. This approach is applicable to the IndianaMap as we can conduct a retrospective study based on currently available maps and the 2005
Statewide Orthophotography Project. Slightly modifying Bhagwat and Ipe’s method to our purpose, we developed a study of the economic benefits of the IndianaMap to demonstrate the value of statewide map data, period of return, and a positive business case for funding the
ongoing creation and maintenance of statewide framework data.
First, input was sought on the total costs of projects and/or operations that are supported
by the IndianaMap. Of 314 responses, 69% (216 responses) provided information on the total cost of their projects and/or operations. Of those responses, some indicated a range in the cost of projects and operations. To maintain a conservative perspective, we consistently used
the lesser values in cases where a range in costs The IndianaMap was indicated. Many of those not responding indicated that total costs were difficult for them to estimate. The respondents identify $1,751,000,145 in Indiana projects and government operations that are supported by the IndianaMap. In addition, of those providing project cost information, 90% indicated that IndianaMap orthophotography was essential to their operations (defined as “project requires high resolution/accuracy data, maybe supplemented with other data; couldn’t do project without it”) and 6% indicated orthophotography was of secondary necessity (defined as “project requires other data that depend on high resolution/ accuracy imagery to create, align, verify, and/or maintain those data”). These projects range from statewide to discrete area projects.
CONCLUSION
The results of the survey clearly indicate that over $1.7 billion in Indiana projects and government operations are supported by the IndianaMap. In short, this means that an initial investment of $8.5 million in the IndianaMap supports over 200-times its value in projects and operations—with 90% of users indicating they could not do their projects without it. The IndianaMap is by definition a public good— those goods that, once they have been produced,
are available to all, without exclusion. While the IndianaMap has many of the characteristics
of a resource, a commodity, a capital asset andinfrastructure, it does not fit neatly into any of these categories. The difficulty in assigning a particular role to the IndianaMap reflects, to a large extent, the diffuse, and hence extensive, impact that it has on the economy. The gains from the IndianaMap can be categorized into three types:
technology.
These tangible, measurable, economic impacts only partially reflect the contribution of the IndianaMap. Consideration must also be given to the social gains resulting from the use of the IndianaMap products. Such an analysis is, by its very nature, largely of a qualitative nature, but it is important to ensure that the monetary estimate deduced in this study does not detract the reader from the wider importance of the IndianaMap.
Humble Beginnings for Local Data in the IndianaMap
National and statewide GIS coordinating bodies have sought for some time to build statewide and nation-wide cadastre, or parcel, frameworks. The Mapping Science Committee – National Research Council cite the many benefits of having a national parcel database in its report, “National Land Parcel Data: A Vision for the Future.” In Indiana, a statewide parcel database may be used for such things as quickly identifying affected property during large natural disasters, such as flooding and tornados. A national (as well as statewide) fabric of land data has been elusive as it inherently relies on the most local of sources of those data – counties, parishes, cities, and towns. Reasons technical, political, financial, and institutional can all be cited as reasons why we don’t already have a national cadastre. While there is still a long row to hoe, Indiana appears to be slowly overcoming those hurdles with the IndianaMap.
Land Parcels in the IndianaMap
With quiet announcement this week, the IndianaMap partners released the first view of a multi-county parcel database. The counties and the State have entered into IndianaMap partnership agreements, in which the counties provide parcels (limited attributes), address points, street centerlines, and administrative boundaries delivered through web map feature services (WFS), and the state provides a bit of seed funds to help establish the WFS, aggregate the data statewide, and channel it out through the IndianaMap to agencies, the original providers, and the public. It is important to note the state also provides a couple hundred statewide data layers available to local governments through the IndianaMap. This week’s view is the very first in what promises to still be a lengthy process, and I’m told it is provided “warts and all.” No matter how humble, it demonstrates a complete flow-through of the data in this process and proves the concept that a statewide (and I’d extend, national) public land parcel fabric is indeed accomplishable. This view shows parcels extending across Kosciusko and Wabash counties. In all, more than 70 (of 92) Indiana counties have agreed to participate.
Keep Your Eye on the Geospatial Revolution Project
Whether you are a lone GIS technician or a large GIS company, education and outreach is an ongoing challenge for everyone in the geospatial industry. The Geospatial Revolution Project was announced about a month ago and I was overly impressed with the goals and production value. It was too bad the wait-time was going to be long for final production. Today I received news that the GRP team will release short video segments throughout the life of the project rather than waiting for them all at the end. They are starting today by making the trailer downloadable. This is a high-quality video that will be useful with the general public and decision-makers (and family members who haven’t got it yet 
. Think about ways you might include the video clip in your community presentations, GIS day, school outreach, or the “About GIS” section of your website. See below for details – what a fantastic resource.
Read more
IndianaMap Local Participation Halfway There
46 of 92 Participating Counties
