The National Map: Quad Sheet Factory

Mark DeMulder of USGS briefed NSGIC on The National Map this week. He started with why the program exists, citing three basic reasons:

- serves info to decision makers
- supports our science mission of USGS too
- cross-jurisdictional maps are useful in emergencies

He then moved on to what The National Map got from the Stimulus Bill. Right now, it looks like the program will receive $15 million to add to its typical $60 million budget.

He went on to focus on basically one use of The National Map that’ll start showing itself in the coming months: electronic topo quads.

Continue reading...

Imagery/Transportation/Parcels/Elevation for the Nation

Most of these are concepts; only Imagery for the Nation (ITFN) is “real” in the sense of being a mature idea. All, however, were part of the policy agenda discussions at the NSGIC midyear. The ideas are so simple: let’s “get together” as a nation and create/collect these datasets for the common good (and to save money).

Imagery for the Nation

ITFN is quite mature. Much research has been done by a NSGIC committee. Some key ideas:

Each level of government participating gets some benefit for participating (that is, by “giving up” funding that might have gone to imagery in the past)

This is a new model for working together which can trasfer to other efforts (transportation/parcels/etc.)

The program needs sustainable funding - and thus needs dependable partnerships.

The program would deliver 1’ imagery with a 6” “buy up” option

Bottom line: ITFN should be line item in the federal budget for $95.6 million/year to be managed by FGDC. It would bring 2200 high tech jobs to the nation.

Most of the Phase 1 (nearterm steps) are well underway:
goal: institutionalize NAIP funding - MOU between USDA and DOI in development
goal: plan for urban area imagery - part of high resolution component in conjunction with USGS/NGA
goal: draft plan - feedback from NSGIC board received in December, new draft in development

Transportation for the Nation

A presentation by Skip Parker of NAVTEQ laid out the idea. Still, TFTN still seems like an idea, rather than a must have. That said, a later presentation by new US Dept of Transportation GIO Steve Lewis clearly showed support for it from him and related transportation agencies.

Parcels (Cadastre) for the Nation

Nancy Von Meyer provided a convincing and entertaining look at why we need a national cadastre. She highlighted lessons learned from when such infrastructure is not in place (you have to put in the fire houses before the fire!) and how such a base map might have served as an “early warning system” for the mortgage crisis. (Why are mortgages mapped to ZIP Codes anyway?) She noted, too, that efforts to study a national cadastre, for as long as its been studied total $0.5 million. The big news on cadastre front is the movement of the state cadastre inventory from a stand alone system into NSGIC online Ramona tool, which serves as a repository of local geodata information.

Elevation for the Nation

This is also just an idea - one coined in a National Research Council report (APB coverage( funded to look at elevation data and flood issues. It got a potential boost today as the Washington Post reported that some of the USGS stimulus money may go to LiDAR (APB coverage).

NSGIC Quotes of the Week

“Money is a killer of coordination.”

- Learon Dalby, Arkansas, paraphrasing Cy Smith, Oregon

“[To see if you can get funding] pull your data/app off line. There’s a risk you’ll lose your job.”

- Learon Dalby, Arkansas

“[To get stimulus money] call your database a databank and data production facility a factory.”

- Marten Hogeweg, ESRI

“They’re not stovepipes, they are cylinders of excellence.”

- Steve Lewis, GIO, USDOT

Agricultural Geospatial Coalition - Lobbying for NAIP

I was interested to learn of the Agricultural Geospatial Coalition LLC a group made up of the six prime contractors of the National Agricultural Imagery Program. Their goal, by pooling resources, is to get NAIP to be a line item in the budget with consistent funding, and to work for better USDA management. It was founded in 2008 and uses a “profession government affairs group” to push its agenda.

There’s not much about them on the Web, but the organization is listed as a registered lobbying group.

NSGIC Open Discussion

It was a rare situation that on the first morning of the NSGIC Midyear in Annapolis we ended up with extra time. President Learon Dalby opened the floor for comments and question and the never shy NSGICers obliged.

Of note:

- A question about whether GIS coordinators (this is a meeting of state GIS coordinators and related players, as well as Federal and some local players and vendors) were mapping their Governors’ State of the State issues. Answer: No, not really.

- A question about mapping stimulus plans. Both New York and California responded yes, which led to the observation that they both had existing infrastructure to do that. That, many agreed was the best way to show the value of geospatial, in contrast to “having one’s hand out.”

- An attendee noted that the GIS savvy Governor of Maryland was not yet tapping his GIS resources on stimulus matters. (I believe I have that right.)

- An attendee noted that the “fourth leg of the stool” of California’s deficit reduction is information technology consolidation.

- Cy Smith of Oregon made what I consider one of the most valuable observations of the day. I’m paraphrasing here. He argued that we don’t get the best response when positioning GIS as infrastructure, but instead we should focus on the stack of problems that it can solve at the local/state/fed level. We need a different approach from what we are doing (which I’d suggest is asking for a big pot of money, at least in the case of the stimulus.)

- Stu Kirkpatrick of Montana noted his Governor thinks all states have a full online parcel database. (They don’t.) In fact, Kirkpatrick has to write a grant each year to fund it! Another perception: “I can get that on Google.” (You can’t.)

- Licensing for GIS people came up again with David Nale citing 6 or 7 states that require a license. As he put it,
“the toothpaste is out of the tube,” so perhaps it’s time to look for using such licenses across state lines. There is confusion as Cy Smith noted that if states adopt both the NCEES Model Law and the Model Rules, there is a GIS exemption.