[gis_info] 2011 Elevation FIT: Update and Preliminary FY11 Action Items

[HILL Milton E * EISPD GEO]

Elevation FIT,

 

Hope everyone enjoyed the holidays and got off to a good start with the New Year.   Some time has passed since our last meeting, and I need to provide a quick update.  

 

 Since our last meeting the following has occurred (in a nutshell):

 

·         Governance - We need to be making progress.  Key objectives include producing 1) an Elevation Stewardship Plan and 2) an Elevation FIT Charter.  Next steps include: 1) meeting with representatives from PAC, FIT and GPL to address development of these OGIC products, 2) distributing our draft stewardship plan for FIT review and comment, and then 3) moving forward with completion and adoption.  First the Stewardship plan and then the Charter.

·         Pursuing Data Development - After a fairly exhaustive evaluation of IFSAR and lack of consensus to pursue, work began evaluating alternate options for acquiring elevation data for the 'hinterlands' and developing a matrix for review by the group, i.e., a tool to asses options and reach consensus.  Options currently include 1) IFSAR, 2) lower density Lidar, 3) deriving DEMs from existing NAIP, and 4) including DEMs in upcoming flights.  Selective criteria under consideration for the matrix currently include 1) cost, 2) quality, 3) value supporting common needs, and 4) reusability, i.e., public elevation information with no restrictions on use or distribution preferred. 

Regarding options 3 and 4: Emmor Nile (ODF) has been involved, and Doug Smith (DSA) has been researching options with Mike Tully from ASI (NAIP contractors).

·         Including Bathymetry - After the presentation, discussion and consensus to incorporate bathymetry at our last meeting, Emmor Nile (ODF), Jon Dasler (DEA), Jacob Macdonald (USACE) and I continued discussion regarding the accommodation of these data.  The basic idea is to update the current elevation standard, 2005 Oregon Elevation Data Standard Version 1.1, to include and reference bathymetry:

o   Building on domains and feature types to accommodate Bathymetry vector data, e.g., 1) spot depth/elevation points,  2) contour lines (depth contours or isobaths), cross-sections and breaklines such as thalweg, channel, shelf, top of bank; and 3) polygons to delineate water's edge and mapping extents.

o   Addressing datum and accuracy standards such as 1) reference to the standards and methods used for data collection and an associated mapping accuracy indicator, e.g., NMAS for 10ft contours; and 2) anchor points with horizontal and vertical datum descriptions to provide a spatial reference and an indicator to determine if data have been projected.

o   Updating the raster elevation standard at the same time to address bathymetry in that format as well.

Next steps include: 1) refining the 2005 Oregon Elevation Data Standard Version 1.1, 2) circulating it for review and comment, 3) accommodating comments, 4) FIT adoption, and then 5) OGIC adoption.

 

·         Pursuing Data Sharing - Evaluating methods to provide on-line web services to best available elevation data 

o   Initiating a pilot to evaluate web based services with NASA, following up their offer to host Lidar data for the state and pursuing methods to provide OSS access via WorldWind (preliminary stages); investigating other solutions as well, such as LP360 Server, ArcGIS Server, and existing solutions available across the state.

o   Identifying policy issues needing attention, e.g., clarifying national security interests, clarifying 'public information', etc. and in general refining policy to encourage the sharing of publicly-funded elevation data cross the state.

Next steps for pilots include 1) clarifying state needs for web-based services, 2) clarifying specifics of pilot, 3) evaluating solutions, and 4) developing recommendations for funding.  Next steps for the policy issues include 1) identifying issues that restrict access and prevent data sharing (core issues), 2) evaluating technical methods to address core issues and 3) proposing policy language to address core issues and promote data sharing.

 

I'm currently operating under the following priorities, in this order, 1) governance as requested by OGIC, 2) data development plan for the hinterlands as needed by those without OLC products or resources to acquire OLC products, 3) follow-up from actions at FIT meetings (bathymetry), and 4) general needs expressed by FIT meeting attendees and others throughout the state to promote data sharing; i.e., many people are still struggling to find best available elevation data and get access.   . . . . I know that other priorities exist.  This is not intended to be full account of what needs to occur, just an update.

 

Significant work lies ahead.  Success requires a balance between finding creative solutions to support short-term needs and reserving time to craft a solid governance model to support long-term needs.  Once through our City budget process (preparing FY10 estimated actual and FY11 budget, accommodating further budget reductions and dealing with some staff transfers), I'll follow up with a more in-depth update and schedule for the 2011.  

 

In the interim, please feel free to comment, question and clarify your needs regarding elevation data.   

 

 

Thank you for your time,

 

 

Brandt Melick
ü TSD Manager

 

Technical Services Division

Public Works Department

City of Springfield
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477

Phone: 541.726.4645
Fax:  541.736.1021

Email: bmelick at springfield-or.gov <mailto:bmelick at springfield-or.gov> 

 

Please note that my email has changed to bmelick at springfield-or.gov.  My old email address will continue to work for some time.

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://omls.oregon.gov/pipermail/gis_info/attachments/20110120/1b3fff71/attachment.html>