The E911 and MDOT road datasets were created and are maintained for specific business needs and are therefore intended to meet the needs of the few. It appears that the idea now is to make the data available on the GeoLibrary so that it can meet the needs of the many. It's unrealistic to believe that this will happen just by making the data available. I assume the data itself and the processes needed to maintain the data would need to change for this to happen. Some of the big questions are "What should the data look like?" and "Who is going to pay for it?" Those questions are difficult to answer. I am glad to see that this issue is finally being addressed in a big way since this has been a vision of mine and of others for a long time. It's a big problem and it will take some time to solve it. I'm also very grateful to the persons investing their time and energy to develop the GeoLibrary. I have faith that the GeoLibrary will evolve into something great if the user community maintains interest and patience. ________________________________ 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.