Digital Parcel Map Database Development Standards for Broad Use

1
Digital Parcel Map Database Development
Standards for Broad Use Moderator Dennis H.
Klein Matt Price Santa Cruz GIS
Local/Regional Perspective Fred Vogler Marin
County GIS Local Perspective John Ellison
California State Resources State Perspective
Dennis H. Klein Boundary Solutions, Inc.
Private/Public Perspective
2
Matt Price Santa Cruz GIS ManagerLOCAL/REGIONAL
PERSPECTIVE Digital Parcel Map Standards

• Questions
• Answers
• More Questions
• Case Study National Map

3
Why Spatial Data Standards?
To maximize data sharing while minimizing the
duplication of effort between all levels of users
and providers of spatial data.
4
Standards for what?

• Spatial Data Standards apply on many levels
  
• Data Format (Shapefile, Geodatasbase)
• File Naming ( i.e. AssessorsParcels v.
  Parcels )
• Thematic Attributes and Table Linkages (APN v.
  Parcel_ID)
• Positional Accuracy
• Maps Symbols
• Map Projections

5
Why is this so Difficult?

• Challenge of Scope County-Regional-State-Federal
  (NSDI)
• Costly to implement
• Some variation will be required
• Data maintenance practices and software used may
  have impact.
• No definition has been developed with regards to
  what parcel level data is required to make a
  cadastral data set complete.

6
What Spatial Data Standards / Models Already
Exist?

• For Parcel Data
• NSDI Cadastral Data Content Standard
• Oakland County Michigan Data Model
• Local Standards

7
Case Study National Map

• Goal is to develop repeatable process for
  compiling local data into a regional format.
• Assumptions
• Standard is in place (USGS BP_08_22_2005a).
• Local Government agrees to document and cross
  walk local data field names to National Map
  field naming convention (in a standard format)
  and provide data (in a standard format).
• No changes to existing format of local data.
  

8
National Map
9
Case Study National Map

• Application Steps
• Re-project local data from state plane to
  National Mapprojection.
• Add fields to projected layer from
• National Map and Calculate values
• Query target data and delete portion of data of
  layer
• being updated.
• Load data into target data.

10
Case Study National Map
National Map data model was not designed to help
local government Cross-walk local data to
it. National Map data models do not explicitly
identify what data is coming from local
sources. Field names in model are longer than
ten characters.
11
Case Study National Map
FIPS Code or local identifier is not present in
all layers with local government as likely
source. Not clear how permanent identifier
present in National Map data will be maintained
if local data is source for updates. Need to
edge-match and agree on county boundaries.
12
Summary

• Define what you are developing standards for
• Format
• Naming
• Attribute
• Symbology
• Projections
• Keep them simple to start.
• Build repeatable process based on existing data
  formats.

13
Fred Vogler, Marin County GIS ManagerLOCAL/REGION
AL PERSPECTIVE Incentive for Digital Parcel Map
Standards
14
Incentive for Standards As GIS becomes more
commonplace, more geodata flows into the public
domain, first as a stream and then as a river,
pushing up interest in using spatial data. 
Part of this interest is integrating maps and
attributes from various areas and agencies, very
difficult without standards.  A very good place
to start is the Federal Geographic Data
Committees data framework. 
15
Incentive for Standards As with networks, the
power and effectiveness of GIS data increases as
more people use them and contribute to geodata
scope and currency. For Example, the USGS
geospatial one-stop and the National Map. 
This in turn intensifies the need for
standards. 
16

• Incentive for Standards
• Integrating Assessor parcel maps, for example,
  from various counties would be facilitated by a
  common standard for
• Identifying the parcel number
• Owners name
• Street address
• Other common fields associated with parcels

17
MarinMap Established Standards A consortium of
public agencies in Marin County has cooperated to
build a countywide GIS with many spatial data
layers staring with the FGDC framework layers
mentioned above.  A set of data structure and
field names standards were adopted to effectively
read and share data across jurisdictions.  To
the extent that the Federal Geographic Data
Committee had standards, these were used. 
18
Incentive for Standards MarinMap developed
standards that meet the needs of the most common
or mission-critical business needs such
as - Emergency response - Property owner
notification, - Infrastructure maintenance).   

19
Incentive for Standards Taking the idea to the
next level The Bay Area regional GIS Council
is building a region-wide GIS data center for the
nine San Francisco Bay Area counties.  A key
goal is to enable all emergency responders to
reference a standardized set of maps with
standardized attributes for the region.
20
Incentive for Standards Some say form follows
function. For GIS, it could be said that use
follows availability. Even more use follows
standardized availability.
21
John Ellison California State Resources State
Perspective Why Digital Parcel Map Standards?
22
22
Why Digital Parcel Map Standards? The nice
thing about standards is that there are so many
of them to choose from. Andrew S. Tanenbaum
23
23
Why Digital Parcel Map Standards? Highly
Desirable - Improved interoperability and
clarity of communication between
organizations. - Competent machine to
machine data exchange that frees us to
focus on far more valuable pursuits like
transforming the data into information and,
eventually, knowledge.
24
24

• Why
• Digital Parcel Map Standards?
• Road to Improved Interoperability and clarity is
  paved with
• Consensus on basic data formats.
• Commonly adopted data exchange definitions and
  protocols.

25
25
Why Digital Parcel Map Standards? Without
consensus, Murphys 11th Law will always rule
If something can be described differently by
different people, it will.
26
26
Why Digital Parcel Map Standards? Most seasoned
GIS professionals have experienced the travails
and wasted time of trying to merge spatial data
with highly disparate - Field names and
other feature class naming conventions. -
Data structures, scopes, annotation, and other
format protocols. Ditto incompetent metadata.
27
27

• Why
• Digital Parcel Map Standards?
• Suggestions.
• Highest initial priority given to expediting
  multi-jurisdictional o Data Exchange
• o Data Assembly - - seamless regional and
  state GIS maps.

28
28
Why Digital Parcel Map Standards? Suggestions.
- Avoid imposing uniformity among operational
systems because o This is dangerous.
o Legacy systems come with their designers
long standing world view. o
Large prior investment of time and egos impede
consensus. o Not enough ROI from
reengineering systems for easier
data sharing.
29
29
Why Digital Parcel Map Standards? Suggestions.
- Identify data structure and format
protocols most easily complied with by
all that offer easier data sharing / assembly the
most. - Once identified, urge adoption by
all parcel data sponsors.
30
Dennis H. Klein Boundary Solutions,
Inc.PRIVATE/PUBLIC PERSPECTIVE Digital Parcel
Map Database Development Standards for Broad Use
31
Dennis H. Klein Boundary Solutions,
Inc.PRIVATE/PUBLIC PERSPECTIVE Digital Parcel
Map Database Development Standards for Broad Use

• Classic Private Sector Data Model
• Bumps and Grinds in the way of Easy Amalgamation.
• Re-Projecting Maps
• - Joining GIS to Tax Rolls and Commercial Tax
  Records- Annotation
• - Naming Conventions
• Emerging Most Common Practice

32
Classic Data Model Entering an address and
being returned a parcel map with - Subject
parcel boundary in the center of the
screen.- Display of linked tax record
attributes - Street names displayed within
ROW.
33
Typical Countywide Seamless Parcel Database
34
QUESTION
What are the Bumps and Grinds in the way of
35
QUESTION
What are the Bumps and Grinds in the way of doing
this easily?
36
BUMP AND GIND 1. No or Bad Map Projection
Files Some deploy data without a projection
description (i.e., .prj). Some deploy with a
projection file but it is wrong because the
out-of-the-box digital parcel map does not
re-project correctly. Some deploy without
description file but state the projection in the
supporting metadata record but it is
wrong. FINALLY, some deploy with a correct
description file and/or correct metadata. Hats
off to you for eliminating a big bump and grind.
37
BUMP AND GIND 1. No or Bad Map Projection Files
Stanley County, NC TIGER FILE COUNTY
BOUNDRY NAD83 Lat Long World Degrees
Stanley County, NC With Parcel File Re-Projected
to View it within the TIGER County Boundary.
IF YES, Projection file Correct. IF NO,
Projection file Needs Correction.
38
BUMP AND GIND 2. No Street Annotation Many
deploy with the digital street centerline map
produced by the data sponsor agency. This
eliminates the Bump and Grind of not having
common protocols for street annotation.
39
BUMP AND GIND 2. No Street Annotation When all
locally produced street centerlines are available
in universal format (SHP), then all maps can have
high quality standard right-of-way annotation.
Digital parcel maps require In-ROW annotation so
that the display of the parcel boundaries is
uncluttered by street annotation.
40
BUMP AND GRIND 3. Not Able to join Tax Rolls to
the GIS.Surprisingly, many jurisdictions have
never thought to do this and when they try, they
cant, but is a must for map amalgamation.
41
BUMP AND GRIND 4. Not Able to join Commercial Tax
Records to the GIS.Much more often, APN/PID/PIN
attribute protocols used by the GIS have no or
little commonality with the one shared with
financial institutions.
42
BUMP AND GRIND 5.Inconsistent Theme / Layer
Names Emerging Most Common Practice Theme 1.
Parcels.shp Parcel Layer Theme 2.
Roads.shp Street Annotation Layer (Row
Annotation) Theme 3. County.shp County Boundary
(quality assurance)
43
BUMP AND GRIND 5.Inconsistent Field
Names Emerging Most Common Practice APN
PID/PIN/PARNO index field name (MANDATORY) Only
mandatory field in Database Table. Equals values
Assessor shares with title companies. FULLSITUS
(NOT MANDATORY) Street Number, Street Name,
City, Zip
44
BUMP AND GRIND 5.Inconsistent View
Conventions Emerging Most Common Practice Only
one view. View name Name of Jurisdiction (i.e.,
Montgomery County, MD)
45
PRIVATE SECTOR INTERESTS Easy assemblage of
multi-county spatial databases including joined
tax record data. Statewide and National Cadastre
Suitable for supporting National Insurance
Operations National Banking/Financing
Operations National Emergency Response
Operations Others