File Keepers Conference

1
File Keepers Conference
Where is the scheme heading? Garry Law
2
The problems Historic heritage being in s6 of the
RMA is going to lead to more planning demand on
the scheme by councils and developers probably
for both basic location data and details on the
sites. The scheme often just copes with the
demand at the moment but does not have much
stretch for the future The change to transverse
mercator projection for national mapping means we
need to adapt this has implications for file
boundaries, grid references and site numbering
(NZAA Council has taken the decision in principle
to move to a single national numbering
system) The upgrade project is producing a data
base with information that has that has long term
value, but there is no long term plan for
sustaining it.
3
The problems 2 The data fields in CINZAS limit
the use to which the database can be put. HPT has
poor access to information on recorded sites for
its statutory and advisory roles More agencies
(Iwi, local authorities) are taking our
information into other systems we are at risk
of not maintaining our primacy as the source by
being able to provide them with readily
utilisable updates, with data formatted for their
needs (particularly for Geographic Information
Systems)
4
What future?Stay as are - and risk becoming
marginalisedBe swallowed by some agency with
the resources to build fancy computer systems
but it will be to their needsMove on building
on the present scheme strengths, but overcoming
the weaknesses, with NZAA still in a central role.
5
Why consider NZAA as being central?

• Other agencies have narrower interests- Iwi are
  interested in Maori sites- HPT is more focused
  on Registered Sites and on the pre- 1900
  archaeolgical sites- DOC has a greater interest
  in sites on its estate.- Local authorities are
  not interested in sites which have been
  destroyed.

NZAA is the body with the broad interest It is
the body with the track record of running a
successful scheme It should build on its success
to date.
6
So what is the future?

• NZAA, DOC and HPT have started working together
  on it
• The first stage will be a new database
• It will
• Incorporate the CINZAS and the Upgrade Project
  data
• Have new data fields for things like
• Authorities issued and used
• National site numbers
• The TMP grid references
• An electronic copy of site record forms
• Site boundary polygons
• Site visit histories
• Bibliographic references
• HPA registered sites (but will not be the HPA
  Register)

7
What will be its use?

• Short term
• It will provide HPT with on-line electronic
  information on sites and authorities
• Provide DOC and others with information in a form
  that can feed into GIS systems
• Provide local councils with updated information
  they can feed into their databases.
• Provide consultants with better site distribution
  and character information

8
What will be its use 2?

• Medium term
• On-line allocation of site numbers to filekeepers
• On-line enquiry system for filekeepers to find
  new site Nos from the old, and the reverse
• On-line search for filekeepers
• Electronic submission option

9
Submission (Conceptual)(Paper based submission
as at present will still exist)
Add electronic signature, Print paper copies of
forms
Use submission program to create record form
images and data base entries
Digital
Digital
Electronic data base
Data validation
Paper file (will be retained but new records will
not be added)
Paper file
District Filekeeper
Central Filekeeper
Recorders
10
What will be its use?

• Longer term
• Central servicing of search information, freeing
  filekeepers to be the local quality managers for
  completeness / currency / accuracy
• Web-based access to approved users
• Web-based edit ability to selected users and
  fields
• Web-based information (limited) to the general
  public

11
How will we get there Who will run it?

• First stage will be a project run under NZAA with
  a project management involving DOC and HPA
• By the time the project delivers a new database
  the institutional arrangements for the ongoing
  support of the database and the central file will
  need to be revisited
• This will be formalised by a three way agreement
  that replaces the present tripartite agreement
• Funding will be sought to get to the end of the
  medium term milestones by 2006

12
Branding

• To sell this upgrade we may need some new
  branding. SRS is not very s.
• One word, or an acronym, with a bit more punch
  would be good.
• N-ZAP
• New Zealand Archaeological Portal

13
File Boundaries on Regional / Unitary Council
Boundaries?

• Is a possibility for the future
• The change is not that radical

14
(No Transcript)
15

• Regional boundaries and council boundaries do not
  always align
• If it happens the process would be staged over
  years
• We could subdivide regions

16
Change on moving to Regional /Unitary Council
Boundaries (2002 figures, thanks to Tony) Super
files might need splitting on district Council
boundaries to be manageable.
17
Finis
The background is Maungakiekie One Tree Hill