What is NCRST Funded under TEA-21, 1998 US DOT: Research & Special Programs Administration Philosophy: rapid evolution of research into commercial products, practice User consultation and outreach Partnerships: industry, international CLEM 2001 #2

The NCRSTs Environment — Mississippi State Chuck O’Hara Infrastructure — UC Santa Barbara Raad Saleh (Wisconsin) Flows — Ohio State Charles Toth Disasters — New Mexico Demin Xiong (Oak Ridge) 9 Technology Application Partners Chris Chiesa (Veridian) CLEM 2001 #3

NCRST Interest in Centerlines 3 of 4 consortia have centerline extraction projects 2 of 9 TAPs are focused on centerline extraction CLEM 2001 #4

UCSB Interest in Centerlines 1970-90 Tobler, Church, Goodchild, etc Funded by Caltrans, USDOT-FHWA since early 1990s: towards IVHS/ITS models Modeling of geometric error GPS, wireless communication Map rectification NCRST: remote sensing ESRI: essential data model for transportation CLEM 2001 #5

Consortium Members Iowa Wisconsin California Florida GPCI NM Souleyrette Hallmark Andrle California Goodchild Church [Estes] Roberts Manjunath Gerges Noronha Wisconsin Vonderohe Scarpace Adams Florida Shrestha Degner Tuell GPCI NM Fletcher CLEM 2001 #6

Why CLEM2001? Centerlines widely studied Diverse approaches, each successful in particular domain To become common practice: understand niche of each method faster, cheaper, more accurate rural vs urban areas exposed vs canopy, etc consolidate techniques CLEM 2001 #7

Some Centerline Applications Precision snow plowing ± 0.2 m ITS messaging … mayday ± 0.1-20 m Toll by road/lane use ± 2 m Highway asset management ± 15 m Elections: right topology Market research: who uses BrandX toothpaste: ± 500 m CLEM 2001 #8

Some Criteria Cost Timeliness Accuracy Scope Errant counties fail to report Disaster response Accuracy Scope Neighborhood vs city vs global CLEM 2001 #9

Easy Street New neighborhood Little or no foliage overhang Vehicles in garage/driveway

Not so easy Repairs and surface coats Paint stripes Shadows Parked vehicles Foliage overhangs

Conclusion One solution is not necessarily better than the others across all criteria — each has its niche CLEM2001 is an opportunity to learn from each other CLEM 2001 #12

Agenda Structure — Monday View from the data producers Don Cooke, GDT — accuracy Bob LaMacchia, Census — beyond TIGER Introductory survey of techniques Raad Saleh CLEM 2001 #13

Agenda Structure — Monday Image analysis techniques Ed Granzow, Iguana Demin Xiong, Oak Ridge Dar Roberts, UCSB Chris Funk, UCSB Chris Chiesa, Veridian Peter Gipps, Quantm CLEM 2001 #14

Agenda Structure — Tuesday GPS/ITS techniques Christopher Bennett, Montgomery Watson Charles Toth, Ohio State Russ Shields, Ygomi GPS/Photogrammetry demo Ted Jones/Gay Hamilton Smith, Florida DOT/HSA Consulting CLEM 2001 #15

Agenda Structure — Tuesday Data modeling Kai Han, U/Manitoba Terry Bills, GIS/Trans Kevin Curtin, UCSB What have we learned, where next (CLEM200x)? Mike Goodchild, UCSB CLEM 2001 #16