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
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.