Surveying, Mapping and GIS

Last week, I attended a discussion session sponsored by the Pennsylvania Mapping and GIS Consortium (PaMAGIC) and facilitated by John Palatiello, regarding standing up a Geospatial Coordination Council as a formal governmental advisory body for Pennsylvania. This is not a new concept, it is something that PaMAGIC has been pursuing for several years, it has been discussed several times prior at the PA GIS Conference, and has been introduced in the legislature several times, in various incarnations. It was last introduced in 2007-2008 by Representative Russ Fairchild as House Bill 1304.

The discussion session was held at the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors' office just outside Harrisburg, and roughly 60 people attended in person and by phone - an excellent cross section of state government, county and local government, private sector, utilities and others. I did not, however, see any representation by the Pennsylvania Society of Land Surveyors or Pennsylvania Society of Professional Engineers. Similarly, I do not see a spot designated on the proposed Council for these organizations.

I have posted two documents - one is a summary of the meeting, the second is the newest version of the proposed bill - the GIS community is invited to provide comment, by the end of this week, to PaMAGIC President Glenn McNichol, gmcnichol -at- dvrpc.org.

In considering the current state of geospatial data in the nation, it runs the gamut. A substantial amount of data is collected and developed at the local level. Some is collected and developed at the state and federal level, some by tribes, some by academia, some by non-profits, and some by private sector. Some of this data is generated on a regular basis, as part of an established program; some is purely on an ad-hoc basis. Some is mandated, such as some of the data collected on environmental data through the National Environmental Information Exchange Network, some is collected, purely incidental to other activities.

Some datasets exist on a national basis, some do not. And all throughout, there are myriad overlapping use cases, which may additionally place differing requirements on datasets. For example, in some cases, a roadway GIS dataset may be geared to roadway maintenance needs; in others, toward network and traffic analysis. In some cases, the requirements, dataset characteristics and attributes can converge and be accommodated in a single dataset. In others, they may not be able to converge, but the needed datasets can be developed by means of value-added attributes or joins. In some cases, derivative data is required. In many cases, there is tremendous need for consistency and authoritative datasets.

The landscape that quickly begins to emerge is one which is a patchwork, full of seams, overlaps, disjoints, gaps and disconnects- but- also one which holds much potential for leveraging disparate investments, and providing economies of scale, along with increasing richness of data, increased update frequency, increased accuracy and completeness.

How can these gaps and disjoints be bridged? Through a framework, forum and national dialogue, bringing together stakeholders at all levels – federal, state, local, tribal, academia, non-profit, and industry; through partnerships; through collaboration - organizations like NSGIC, like Federal and other agency GIS workgroups, like CUAHSI and many others. This is what holds a National Spatial Data Infrastructure together and brings success.