MN Parcel Data Standard

1
MN Parcel Data Standard

• State Standards Process
• and Useful Insights

DCDC 12/04/2009
Mark Kotz
2
Overview

• State Standards Process
• Purpose
• Semantics
• Required vs. Optional
• Scope
• Metadata
• Attributes
• Implementation Considerations

3
State Standards Process

• Existing Standards
• Codes for state
• Codes for counties
• Codes for cities, townships, unorgs
• Codes for lakes and wetlands
• Codes for reaches and watercourses
• Codes for watersheds
• Coordinate system interchange (State)
• Positional accuracy reporting
• Metadata
• USNG

4
State Standards Process

• Typical Parts of Standard
• Applicability When does/doesnt it apply?
• Purpose
• Requirements (specifics)
• Compliance What is it, How measured?
• References Resources

5
State Standards Process

• Driven by SMEs stakeholders (e.g. your
  committee)
• Start Clear purpose for standard and defined
  stakeholders
• Propose a draft (take the time needed)
• Well thought out
• Input from stakeholders
• Preliminary approval by DCDC Standards

6
State Standards Process

• Public review of draft
• Must demonstrate
• Active review by stakeholders
• Opportunity for review by all affected
  stakeholder groups (within reason)
• Standards Committee
• Post draft
• Spearhead review in MN geospatial community
• DCDC
• Facilitate review outside geospatial community
• Producers and users

7
State Standards Process

• Both Document and respond to comments
• Modifications may be needed
• Propose final draft, addressing comments
• Approval by Standards Committee
• Approval by ? Probably both MnGeo advisory
  groups?
• Post on Standards and OET web sites

8
Purpose

• What is the purpose of your standard?
• What do you hope to accomplish?
• Who does it help?
• How does it help them?
• Who might it affected?

9
Semantics Are Important

• Standard can be viewed as unfunded mandate
• Guidelines can be viewed as too weak
• Data Transfer Standard more palatable, often
  true purpose
• No mandate for collection/storage
• Just ability to convert to standard
• Often has implications for collection/storage
• State Wide Parcel Dataset Specifications
• and transfer standard?

10
Required vs. Optional Aspects

• Tie to purpose. Required for what purpose?
• Examples
• All fields must be present and specified format
• Fields X, Y and Z must be populated
• Field X must comply with defined domain
• Format affects this. E.g. XML more flexible than
  shape file

11
Scope of Standard

• Geography attributes
• Projection or datum? May be good idea
• MetroGIS had issues
• So many transformation may be tricky
• Precision requirements? No
• low positional accuracy can be highly useful
  for many purposes
• Very mandatish
• Require description of positional accuracy?

12
Metadata Requirements

• Opinion require some metadata
• Is data suitable for a particular purpose?
• Getting updates is challenging
• Reserve right to use none provided?
• Nancy Rader excellent resource
• Originator, contact info, time period, access
  use constraints, positional accuracy description

13
Attributes What Balance?

• A few attributes everyone has vs. lots of
  optional attributes many wont include now
• MetroGIS
• 5, then 29, now 65
• Many not populated
• Completeness assessment
• www.datafinder.org/metadata/MetroGIS_Regional_Parc
  els_Attributes.pdf
• Fixed domain vs. free text?
• Potential use vs. realistic

14
(No Transcript)
15
Implementation

• Is who part of standard?
• Business needs of data developers!!!!!!!!!!
• Why should they spend any resources?
• MetroGIS paid 4k to each county
• Some may really want and use it voluntarily
• Many will not have resources/political will
• What resources are available to aid them?
• Guidance
• Money
• Technical support

16
Implementation

• Just defining standard is very valuable if
• Well thought out
• Input and buy-in from stakeholders
• Clear purpose
• Clear compliance rules
• No perception of unfunded mandate
• even if it is not widely used right away.

17
Resources

• Existing State Geospatial Standards
• www.gis.state.mn.us/committee/stand/standards_adop
  ted_devel.htm
• MetroGIS 29 attributes
• www.datafinder.org/metadata/metrogis_regional_parc
  els_2002.htm
• MetroGIS 65 attributes
• www.datafinder.org/metadata/metrogis_regional_parc
  els.htm
• Attribute Completeness assessment (starts p.2)
• www.datafinder.org/metadata/MetroGIS_Regional_Parc
  els_Attributes.pdf
• Minnesota Geographic Metadata Guidelines
• www.gis.state.mn.us/stds/metadata.htm

18

• Mark Kotz
• Metropolitan Council
• Chair, Standards Committee
• mark.kotz_at_metc.state.mn.us