# Presentation: 069618

## Implementation of The National Map Road Database

**Bryan Weaver**
- Masters of Science Candidate
- Department of Geography
- University of Georgia

**Project Report**

- ACSM - April 2004

## 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

- ACSM - April 2004

## Introduction

- 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.

- ACSM - April 2004

## Methodology

- Three basic methods for developing a recommended implementation strategy.

- _Professional Interaction with __*TNM *__personnel_ and _literature review_ of *TNM *and push/pull factors to spatial information partnering.
- _Visual analysis of road data_ from various government entities.
- _Assumptional analysis of TNM road data alternative implementation strategies._

- ACSM - April 2004

## 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/

- ACSM - April 2004

## 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

- ACSM - April 2004

## 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.**

- ACSM - April 2004

## 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

- ACSM - April 2004

## 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”

- ACSM - April 2004

## 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

- ACSM - April 2004

## Integration of TNM Road Data

- ACSM - April 2004

## Challenges Facing TNM: Technical 

- Most public datasets are Outdated and inaccurate:

- ACSM - April 2004

## Challenges Facing TNM: Technical

- Horizontal data integration:

- ACSM - April 2004

## 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*?

- ACSM - April 2004

## 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)

- ACSM - April 2004

## 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?

- ACSM - April 2004

## 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.

- ACSM - April 2004

## 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

- ACSM - April 2004

## The USGS / U.S. Census Bureau PartnershipMAF/TIGER Enhancement

**Objectives:**
- Improve TIGER Positional accuracy and implement automated change detection;
- Implement a new processing environment;
- Expand and encourage geographic partnerships;
- Launch the Community Address Updating System;
- Implement periodic evaluation activities.

- ACSM - April 2004

## 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.

- ACSM - April 2004

## 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.”

- ACSM - April 2004

## 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.

- ACSM - April 2004

## Attribute Translation from Local to Global

- ACSM - April 2004

## 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?

- ACSM - April 2004

## TNM Recommendation (cont.)

- Private Networks to $ Subscribers

- ACSM - April 2004

## 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?

- ACSM - April 2004