NSGIC and National GIS news

2. NSGIC 2007 was held in Madison !

3. Wisconsin

4. Wisconsin @ NSGIC 2010
Chris Diller, GIS Manager, Wisconsin DMA
John Ellingson, Wisconsin Geodetic Advisor, NOAA, NGS
Travis Franz, Content Specialist, NAVTEQ
Ted Koch, University of WI - Madison
James Lacy, Associate State Cartographer, UW, SCO
Curtis Pulford, State Geographic Information Officer, DOA, DET
Jerry Sullivan, GIS Data Specialist, Wisconsin DNR
Dr. Howard Veregin, Wisconsin State Cartographer
Dick Vraga, USGS Geospatial Liaison for Wisconsin
AJ Wortley, Sr. Outreach Specialist, UW, SCO

5. This year’s top opportunities are:
 For the Nation Data Initiatives
 Address Points from Census Bureau
 Governance of the
National Spatial Data Infrastructure
 Technology to Improve
Government Effectiveness

6. Other Wisconsin NSGIC members
Michael Friis, Program Manager, WI Coastal Mgmt. Program
David Mockert, Director State & Local Practice, GeoDecisions
David Moyer, Wisconsin Geodetic Advisor, NOAA, NGS (ret.)
Kenneth J Parsons, IV, Chief, GIS Services, Wisconsin DNR

8. GeoPlatform.gov - Call to Action
In 2010 and 2011, Federal data managers for geospatial data will move to a
portfolio management approach, creating a Geospatial Platform to support
Geospatial One-Stop, place-based initiatives, and other potential future programs.
This transformation will be facilitated by improving the governance framework to
address the requirements of State, local and tribal agencies, Administration policy,
and agency mission objectives.
Investments will be prioritized based on business needs.
The Geospatial Platform will explore opportunities for increased collaboration with
Data.gov, with an emphasis on reuse of architectural standards and technology,
ultimately increasing access to geospatial data."
President’s Budget, Fiscal Year 2011

9. Geospatial Platform Conceptual Model
http://www.GeoPlatform.gov
Improved Business Processes and Outcomes
Streamlined Access to Resources
NGOs, State Local Tribal Federal Private Volunteers,
Academia Government Government Government Government companies Crowds
* It is recognized that partner agencies may be both providers and customers of GeoPlatform.gov assets

11. GeoPlatform.gov
It took only an estimated $480,000 to get the Geospatial Platform up and running.
The open-source ERMA application, uses Google Maps for its layers, was expanded to
accommodate 600 different data layers, many of which are updated in real time.
The Geospatial Platform allows the public to search and display data about:
• Oil spill trajectories near the shore.
• Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment Team results.
• Satellite interpretations for potential oil footprints. Field photos.
• Wildlife observations. Closures of fisheries in federal and state waters.
• Shoreline flight imagery from NOAA, NASA and EPA.
• Navigational caution area for mariners. Data buoys.
• Current environmental conditions.
• Predicated environmental conditions.
• Location of research and response vessels.
• Related data, such as seafood safety, EPA monitoring and subsurface monitoring
analytical chemistry.
• The data is updated twice a day.
In early June, Geospatial Platform was launched, public site received 3.5 million hits.
Since then, it has had more than 4.8 million visitors.

26. Data Sharing
what works… what doesn’t
Lynda Wayne, GeoMaxim/FGDC
Dr. Tim De Troye, SC GIS Coordinator

27. Background A Process Framework
for
Developing Local
Government
2008-2009 Data Access Policies
• South Carolina Geospatial Administrators
Association (SC GAA) Data Policy survey
shows lack of data policies in local
government
2009
• SC GAA develops guidelines for the
development of policies
• SC GAA and GeoMaxim/FGDC survey national
community as to successes and failures with regard to
data policies
• lessons learned compiled and guidelines
drafted

28. For the record…
Data sharing is valuable because
the more data is used the:
• better it gets via broader
QA/QC
• greater attention to your
organization
• more opportunities to leverage
data
• fewer competing data sets
created
• more complementary data sets
created

29. Data Sharing Supports
Emergency Response
If all sectors, public and private, can’t access
critical information, lives can be lost
Economic Development
If they can’t find about you – they
can’t come spend/invest their money
Planning
Bad decision-making by others can have
far-reaching effects on your community
Navigation Systems / Online Mapping
If the route is wrong – you get the blame

30. Data Sharing Issues
Complicated Data Sharing Agreements
Poor Data Documentation
Limited Capacity and/or Infrastructure
Personal Privacy and Public Safety
Data Control
Data Misuse and Exploitation
Differing Perspectives

31. Special Thanks…
Jim Steil Randy Johnson Anne Payne
Pat Bresnehan Kenny Miller Tom Morgan
AJ Wortley Patti Day Will Craig
Learon Dalby Scott Samson Neil McGaffey
Jim Sparks Phillip Worrall Joy Paulus
Jeff Brown Bob Nutsch Nancy von Meyer
NC GICC SC GAA
AR, MS, MD, NC,
SC, WI

32. Data Sharing Agreements
What Works:
• Handshakes and trust
• Collaboratively developed, effective,
standardized data sharing
agreements
What doesn’t:
• Formal agreements that include
imprecise language, serve as road blocks to © The Simpsons
innovative partnerships and add overhead
• Over-involvement on the part of
Administration and Legal staff that attempt
AR, MS, MD, NC,
to cover all the bases SC, WI

33. Poor Data Documentation
What Works:
• Providing metadata creation
and support in return for data
access
• Support for community-
wide metadata training and
resources
What doesn’t:
• Trying to create metadata for
another's data by guessing at NC, WI
how the data were created

34. Balancing Right to Know and Confidentiality
What Works:
• Data standards that address privacy and
security issues
• Edited/generalized versions that exclude
sensitive content
• Public Record Laws & Data Sharing Policies that
address geospatial & establish guidelines as to who
can access the data and how
• Recognizing that very little data is
truly ‘sensitive’ AR, MA, SC
• FGDC Data Access Guidelines

35. FGDC Publication:
Access to Geospatial Data
in Response to Security
Concerns
http://www.fgdc.gov/policyandplanning/Access%20Guidelines.pdf

36. Balancing Right to Know and Confidentiality
What Doesn’t:
• Wholesale approaches that
eliminate sharing of all
‘potentially’ sensitive data
• Over-involvement on the part
of Administration and Legal
personnel that attempt to cover
all the bases

37. Maintaining Data Control
What Works:
• Earnest dialog about concerns
and solutions
• Data stewards / trusted sources
• Data acknowledgement and
lineage guidelines
• Data management models that
allow the use of data that is
maintained in your system
What doesn’t: IN, LA, NC, MetroGIS,
SC
• Treating public data as a private
resource

38. Data Misuse and Exploitation
What Works:
• Metadata, metadata, metadata with
valid ‘Use Constraints’, ‘Distribution
Liability’ and ‘Purpose’ statements
• Clearly stated license/copyright
requirements and mandatory
acknowledgement by the consumer
• Making data freely accessible so
consumers use current version
What doesn’t: AR, MA, NC
• Confusing misuse with innovation

39. Limited Data Sharing Capacity & Infrastructure
What Works:
• $ - especially if designated to build and
maintain data sharing capacity (new
data collection, hardware, software,
training, etc)
• A simplified process that adds no
burden to the data provider
• Documenting return on investment to
warrant capacity building
What doesn’t:
• One time payments for data that are AR, IN, MA, MD,
not tied to capacity building MetroGIS, SC, WA, WI

40. Differing Perspectives
What Works:
• Approaching data providers
with a proposal
• Data consumers that inquire as
to the data providers needs and
bring something to the table: $, services, data…
• Approaching data sharing as a cooperative partnership
• A respected champion, Will Craig’s ‘White Knight’
What doesn’t:
• Demands for data MD, MSU, MetroGIS, NC,
SC, WA, WI

41. South Carolina Example
• Home rule state – counties retain power
• FOIA – interpretation varies between state
and local government
• Many counties copyright/license data to users
• Prior gov to gov sharing of roads and imagery
• Views of gov to gov sharing varies by county

42. South Carolina – Building Relations
• CAP grant outreach to local government
• Build relationships first, ask for data second
• Campaign on state uses of local data, stress
benefits to local community members
• Educate on importance of no data agreements
• Explain benefits of streamlined access to state
through data “collector” – minimize individual
requests to counties

44. South Carolina – Expanding Sharing
• Built on precedence of sharing centerlines
• Created inventory of address points/parcels –
many counties have points, most have parcels
• Timeline:
– After 1.5 years - asked for address points
– Six months later - asked for parcels (any form)
– Six months later – asked for parcels/CAMA

45. South Carolina Parcels
Parcels Status
Parcels Status
Complete
Waiting
OK w Agreement
Checking
No Sharing
Data Building
No Parcels

46. South Carolina Address Points
Address Points Status
Address Points Status
Complete - Address Points
Waiting
Complete - Parcel Centroids
OK w Agreement
Checking
No Sharing
Data Building
No Points

47. South Carolina – Giving Back
• Provide feedback on uses, caveats/stories
• Provide state-maintained data improved by
local data sharing
• Provide ungeocoded addresses for QA/QC
• Ask for local government involvement on
projects that don’t involve money – continued
demonstration of their value/expertise
• Giving back encourages
continued participation

49. South Carolina – Avoiding Barriers
• Never pay for data, if not a joint project
(imagery/LiDAR acquisition, etc.)
• Educate on importance of avoiding
agreements
• NEVER ask local government to modify data
– ESRI Data Interoperability Extension
– Model Builder can do the work for you

50. South Carolina - Challenges
• Must abide by local permissions granted – no
sharing with Feds at this point due to fear of
data getting pushed to public domain
• Long timeline to effect a philosophy shift
• Cannot force anyone to participate (a few
hold outs) – incomplete data coverage for
state
• Maintaining relationships is labor intensive,
but pays off

51. More info?
• Lynda Wayne
Lwayne@GeoMaxim.com
• Tim De Troye
detroyet@gis.sc.gov