I think this would be a good panel discussion and possibly a demo of the
two State systems at a future MEGUG. I would be more then willing to
participate.
Tom
________________________________
From: Maine GeoLibrary [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Will Mitchell
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 9:48 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Planning Project Update
Greg - thanks for the question - it is great to see some life in this
listserv and I think the list will grow as a valuable communication
resource for all of us.
We use Teleatlas, e-911, and MDOT data here on different projects.
Navteq may compare favorably but I don't know - I think their data has
the best routing characteristics at least which is a different challenge
again. Even when using the larger scale data from the state we often
photorevise the centerlines for a town or local area because they are
not always up to snuff when overlaid on the orthos if working at a large
scale. Small to medium scale they are great geometrically. Nate gave
an excellent description of this scale issue and of the status and
issues with centerlines from DOT's perspective. It sounds like the data
'owners' as well as users agree that the different attribution is a
problem - ideally one roads source would have address ranges AND
classifications and typing and so forth - oh yeah, AND geometry
corrected to the orthos AND routing characteristics (OK, too much to
expect all in one and for free).
On the addressing question you raised, and specifically the parcel entry
into that discussion - this is a big reason for everyone to pay
attention to the land records study going on as part of this general
strategic plan. Imagine if we had a blanket parcel map covering the
state of Maine with consistent quality/accuracy and attribution and with
accessible, regularly updated data. I know first hand of some companies
undertaking to incorporate parcel data nationally to drive the geocoding
to a parcel level instead of segment ranges - Maine is not on their
radar screen or literally 'on their map' for this because its too much
hassle to roll what data there is in and there are too many data gaps.
That's an aside really but the GeoLibrary is in a position to move data
development forward (standards, grants), make it accessible (portal, web
services), and steer a course towards integrating with other land
records (deeds, surveys). None of this is 'done' and may never be but
that's a great topic of discussion currently ongoing with the land
records study.
Thanks!
Will Mitchell
Mitchell Geographics, Inc.
188 State Street, Suite 200
Portland, ME 04101
Office: 207.879.7769
Mobile: 207.650.2057
Fax: 207.221.5861
www.mitchellgeo.com
________________________________
From: Maine GeoLibrary [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Davis, Greg
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 5:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Planning Project Update
Good List, however I would like to mention that from my preliminary
review of the E911 centerlines and MEDOT centerlines in comparison to
centerline of 2 most widely used sources (NAVTEQ and TELEATLAS) for
street data in comparison or overlaid to Google Earth. I have found
that there is a lot of mismatch between Google and our local (E911 &
MEDOT) sources.
Has anyone else seen this? What source is considered to be correct or
mostly correct?
All your input would be appreciated as I'm under a task of developing a
new state landbase and then there is addressing, not address ranges.
That is another question that can wait, but address ranges without
knowing what that towns standard (50, 100', or 200') becomes very
difficult to determine. Then you have towns that have their parcel data
with addressing posted to their websites, but we don't have access to
that data from the state website.
All input and suggests are welcome.
Thanks,
Greg Davis
Time Warner Cable
[log in to unmask]
P Go Green! Print this email only when necessary. Thank you for helping
Time Warner Cable be environmentally responsible.
|
