[ORMAP-Tech] Cadastral Fit Proposals

[SMITH Cy * EISPD GEO]

Thanks Dean, let me chat with Milt about the FIT suggestions, but these sound like pretty reasonable proposals to me.  The intent from the beginning when we established the FIT governance/coordination structure was to have the existing ORMAP governance/coordination structure serve as the Cadastral FIT. For various reasons, that wasn't immediately workable, so we kind of went down a slightly different path.  I'd be happy to have those two paths converge now.  The reason we've always tried to have a Cadastral FIT Chair be a local government person is because, obviously, the vast majority of cadastral data comes from local governments.  The other aspect of the FIT chairmanship is that it's generally proven to be a good idea to have some notion of changing the Chair from time to time to provide some fresh energy, etc.  Just some things to think about.

cy

Cy Smith, Statewide GIS Coordinator
DAS/EISPD Geospatial Enterprise Office
President, Urban/Regional Info Sys Assoc. (URISA)
Delegate, Coalition of Geospatial Organizations (COGO)
Past President, Natl. States Geographic Info. Council (NSGIC)
503-378-6066          http://gis.oregon.gov 


-----Original Message-----
From: DEAN ANDERSON [mailto:ANDERSON.DEAN at co.polk.or.us] 
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 9:40 AM
To: SAVAGE Kerry; BERRY Shawn; SACKINGER Doug; FERRIS Craig; BOHARD Eric; YSTAD Eileen; Krysta Houseknecht; Joe Flori; FLORIJoe; Robin Gallo; BURKE Laurie; Nikki Whitty; Crook County GIS; CRUMLEY Dan; John Hawkins; KOLEN Jim; BATES Greg; CAMPBELL Shad; SALMON Connie S; THOMPSON Kathy; LEWIS Wendell; MERTZ Bryce; SCHRANKEL Mike; MAMIC Mike; SNODGRASSGabe; MCCAFFERTY John; FICHTMANBruce; WILCOX Ruth; ISRAEL Phil; Phil Israel; MLADENICH Brian; URBATZKA Danni; CUTTING David; HOLLANDCharlotte; Eli Adam; WAFFENSCHMIDT John; ScottBranchfield; BARNETT Steve; Scott Valentine; GANOESteve; EHLERSTim; DOHERTY Becky; WESTERSUND Andrea; ANDERSON Debra A; PATTERSON Janice H; MARTIN Tom; TOM BRATENG; MCDERMID Jenine; SCHINK Wendy; Tracie Diehl; SMITH Dawn; BOLDT Dan; GRANVILLE Tycho; GUTTORMSEN Hall; NELSON Joe; BABBITT Kevin; LIVINGSTON Roger; Steve Baldwin; HANSBERRY Brian; LINSCHEID Dan; HAAS Bob; ZUNIGA Ashley P; Assessors; KIVLEY James A; PRYCHUN John S; TAYLOR Matthew; MCCLELLAN Philip L; SCHACK Richard J; MERCER Timothy C; CACKA Ann; Jackson County GIS; Len Jacobson; JOHNSON Bill; Baron Howe; KIMBERLING Jim; KOOCH Michelle; Carol Hall; Bob Neathamer; Byron Clayton; Tim Khouri; cy.smith at state.or.us; PRYCHUN John S; HILL Milton E * EISPD GEO; HILL Linda; HARTELL Scott; John Minor
Cc: Bob Haas; ORMAP Tech List
Subject: Re: Cadastral Fit Proposals

Issue 1: Cadastral FIT Organization 
------------------------------------------

I would like to propose..

a. We expand the ORMAP technical committee to also be the  Cadastral Fit Committee. Our meetings are open to anyone and I assume interested state agency folks that are already on the Cadastral FIT could come to our meetings. 

b. The first item for business at the ORMAP technical committee meetings could be the FIT meeting. This will allow interested state agency folks to attend and then leave. (However, I feel it is  important that these folks see what goes on in our meetings and that may help them understand our issues better.)

c. Phill M. becomes the FIT Coordinator.  Phil is already coordinating for us and he already facilitates our meetings. He is doing a good job and I think if the countys can trust him to do our grants right we ought to be able to trust him to represent us on FIT. 

It seems a little silly that we meet as ORMAP folks discuss proposals and informally approve them so that another group can do the same thing.  We already have an organization that cares deeply about the cadaster and a coordinator doing a good job. I think one reason you may be having problems filling this position is that it really appears to be redundant.  I've checked on the FIT site on the DAS's site and it appears that this would easily work within the FIT structure.  It does not stop the other work groups from meeting (by the way I resigned from the PLSS group years ago and the site has not been updated).  I would assume that any issues with the PLSS framework would greatly impact our group. 



Issue 2: Adopt Proposals 
------------------------------ 

At the recent ORMAP technical committee meeting it appears that we approve the following proposals to be taken forward to the cadastral fit. 

--> Proposal 1: Adopt WMS as the standard for publishing taxlot mapping services. The "WMS" is an open source standard that should meet our needs.  The standard is widely accepted, it is vendor neutral and allows for graphic viewing and identifying of taxlots by service consumers. 

--> Proposal 2: Adopt the ORMAP cadastral standard (features and attributes joined) as our content standard for publishing WMS's. 


--> Proposal 3: Expand the taxlot exchange standard to contain a field called "referencelink" that is 254 characters  in length. 

--> Proposal 4: The "referencelink" field could contain three optional values: a) a link to the county web site, b) a link to a metadata/disclaimer description or c) a link to go directly to that taxlot in the county web mapping site.