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
Thanks!
Will Mitchell
Mitchell
Geographics, Inc.
Office: 207.879.7769
Fax: 207.221.5861
www.mitchellgeo.com
From: Maine GeoLibrary
[mailto:
Sent: Wednesday, September 17,
2008 5:30 PM
To:
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
P Go Green! Print this
email only when necessary. Thank you for helping Time Warner Cable be
environmentally responsible.