2. ACSM - April 20041 Implementation of The National Map Road Database Bryan Weaver Masters of Science Candidate Department of Geography University of Georgia Project Report

3. ACSM - April 20042 Project Report Internship – Summer 2003 U.S. Geological Survey Mid-Continent Mapping Center Rolla, Missouri This report was funded by a grant from the U.S. Geological Survey to the University of Georgia

4. ACSM - April 20043Introduction  Define The National Map (TNM) and describe the push-pull factors for spatial data consolidation.  Present technical and institutional challenges facing The National Map road implementation.  Describe the United States Geological Survey (USGS) plan for The National Map road data implementation.  Weight the plan against these challenges.  Recommend strategies that may best address such challenges. Goal : To provide guidance in the responsible development of The National Map road database.

5. ACSM - April 20044 Methodology Three basic methods for developing a recommended implementation strategy. 1.Professional Interaction with TNM personnel and literature review of TNM and push/pull factors to spatial information partnering. 2.Visual analysis of road data from various government entities. 3.Assumptional analysis of TNM road data alternative implementation strategies.

6. ACSM - April 20045 The National Map - Defined TNM will be a seamless, geographically complete, and continuously maintained set of geographic base information for the entire nation. It will rely on the collaboration of multiple government (federal, state, and local) and private mapping organizations. http://erg.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/factsheets/

7. ACSM - April 20046 The National Map - Defined Geographical data themes:  High-resolution digital orthorectified imagery  High-resolution surface elevation data  Vector feature data for transportation (roads, railways, and waterways), hydrography (rivers and water bodies), structures, government unit boundaries, and publicly owned lands boundaries.  Geographic names for physical and cultural features  Land cover data

8. ACSM - April 20047 The Need for Spatial Data Consolidation Rise of Spatial Information Redundancy  Rapid adoption of GIS  Organizational isolation.  Lack of coordination between and within public and private entities.  Distinct missions and budgets.  Legacy spatial information systems and data models. In sum, rapid, independent, and ubiquitous adoption of GIS yields spatial information redundancy.

9. ACSM - April 20048 The Need for Spatial Data Consolidation Existing Public Road Databases:  USGS: Digital Line Graphs (DLG), and Digital Raster Graphics (DRG)  U.S. Bureau of Census: Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER)  U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics: National Transportation Atlas Database  State, regional, county, and city road databases

10. ACSM - April 20049 Federal Initiatives to Reduce Redundancy  USGS: The National Map (TNM)  USGS next generation topographic mapping via distributed partner-based content structure.  U.S. Bureau of Census: TIGER Enhancement Program  Spatial and a-spatial road data enhancement ($200 million with Harris Corp.)  FGDC: Geospatial-One-Stop  Federal geospatial data portal - “Two clicks to Data”

11. ACSM - April 200410 Integrating Disparate Networks Conceptual Data Flow: Federated Database design – Local schemas mapped to a global schema for attribute conflation and maintenance. Physical Integration Processes: Vertical Integration = Cross-thematic topological integrity Horizontal Integration = Same-theme edge-matching

12. ACSM - April 200411 Integration of TNM Road Data

13. ACSM - April 200412 Challenges Facing TNM: Technical Most public datasets are Outdated and inaccurate:

14. ACSM - April 200413 Challenges Facing TNM: Technical Horizontal data integration:

15. ACSM - April 200414 Challenges Facing TNM: Multi-Institutional GIS Development  Integration in a heterogeneous environment;  Institutional and technical impediments will contribute to the complexity of implementation;  How will these factors influence the requirements and expectations of TNM?

16. ACSM - April 200415 Challenges Facing TNM: Institutional  Variation in participant priorities;  Variation in GIS experience among participants;  Differences in spatial data handling;  Disagreements among participants regarding data openness, leadership, standards, and cost sharing. Masser and Campbell (1995)

17. ACSM - April 200416 Challenges Facing TNM: Institutional continued… The more participants in a data sharing program, the greater organizational complexity (Meredith, 1995; Fountain, 2001). TNM may have thousands of participants. Azad et al. (1995) found an inverse relationship between the interdependency of participants and the likelihood of program success. Who will rely on who for what and how frequently?

18. ACSM - April 200417 Technical Factors Complicating Integration:  Total length of coincident participant boundaries;  Road network feature density at the participant boundaries;  Complexity (attribute precision) of the global schema;  The number of participant schemas to be unified to The National Map global schema;  Degree of participant interdependency.

19. ACSM - April 200418 TNM Road Implementation Plan USGS - U.S. Census Bureau Partnership USGS and U.S. Census have designated the enhanced TIGER database as the primary provider of road data for The National Map. Schedule completion of positional accuracy enhancement is 2008. Let’s take a closer look at the MAF/TIGER Enhancement

20. ACSM - April 200419 The USGS / U.S. Census Bureau Partnership MAF/TIGER Enhancement Objectives: 1.Improve TIGER Positional accuracy and implement automated change detection; 2.Implement a new processing environment; 3.Expand and encourage geographic partnerships; 4.Launch the Community Address Updating System; 5.Implement periodic evaluation activities.

21. ACSM - April 200420 The USGS / U.S. Census Bureau Partnership MAF/TIGER Enhancement Objectives 1 - Improve TIGER Positional accuracy and implement automated change detection.  Completion date of 2008 by way of contract with Harris Corp. includes TIGER roads, boundary information.  A 7.6 meter, or better, positional accuracy requirement. This is well within TNM accuracy standards.

22. ACSM - April 200421 The USGS / U.S. Census Bureau Partnership MAF/TIGER Enhancement Fred Broom et al. (2003) in PERS October, 2003 “The USGS’ list of desired features was more extensive than that needed by the Census Bureau.” The Census Bureau agreed to provide a location within its DB structure for State / Local attributes that may be of interest to The National Map. However… “…The Census Bureau (stated that they) would not actively solicit or extract such features.”

23. ACSM - April 200422 The USGS / U.S. Census Bureau Partnership MAF/TIGER Enhancement Thus, the USGS will need to collect and integrate “best available data” to meet its current demand for additional a-spatial attributes. This IS NOT simply resolved via attribute conflation from local datasets to a federated schema.

24. ACSM - April 200423 Attribute Translation from Local to Global

25. ACSM - April 200424 TNM Recommendation Road data integration :  Need for an Overarching NSDI authority above USGS for successful coordination of geospatial data management.  Coordinate data solicitation  Coordinate and prioritize research  Budget Authority  Requirements study inclusive of all, major stakeholder communities across all political levels of government.  What minimum set of road attributes are needed across all levels?  How might these be standardized to avoid an under-bound participant community?  Participant accrediting?

26. ACSM - April 200425 TNM Recommendation (cont.) Private Networks to $ Subscribers

27. ACSM - April 200426 Conclusions  The National Map road data will leverage the U.S. Census Bureau’s TIGER Enhancement Program and local data providers.  Technical integration (horizontal and vertical) and institutional integration present many challenges to partnering.  Literature sites the need for Overarching Authorities in complex partnership programs.  Minimal, core requirements should be defined for global schema.  Minimal standardization of participants should be required. Questions?