|
The meeting began at 8:30 AM in at the Land Management Information Center (LMIC) in the Centennial Building.
David Windle, City of Roseville; Dick Carlstrom, TIES; Chris Cialek, LMIC; Scott Hovet, Washington County;
Paul Leegard, Anoka County; Ron Wencl, U.S. Geological Survey.
Support Staff: Mark Kotz, Metropolitan Council
Others: Ed Krum, NSP
1, 2, 3. Introductions and Modifications to Agenda and Meeting Notes
Team members made introductions. There were no modifications to the agenda or the meeting notes from the
previous meeting.
4. Information Sharing & News from Other Committees and Teams
Wencl reviewed the last Coordinating Committee and Policy Board meetings. There were no major developments for
the standards team that are not already covered on the agenda. See notes for those meetings on the MetroGIS web page
for more information.
5. Update from Address Working Group
Team members discussed the few comments received from the review of the address standards recommendation and
issues and guidelines document. The draft standards recommendation was approved by team members to send to the
Coordinating Committee (with two minor changes: 1. add 1996 to data in first paragraph, 2. mention that it was sent out
for review.) Team members also discussed various address standards issues and concluded that addressing standards may
come up again when we look at specific datasets that include addresses. Two modifications were made to the document.
One was to more clearly define what the term "zone" refers to on page 4. The other modification was to add in the
Governor's Council definitions of a standard, guideline and convention.
6. Update from Coordinate System Working Group
Wencl reported that this group has not met since the last meeting. Wencl and Kotz expressed an interest in
coordinating with the Governor's Council Standards Committee on the project involving creating a document to describe
coordinate systems, projections, etc. and list projection perimeters. Cialek said he would put the item on the next
Governor's Council Standards Committee agenda. Cialek also noted that the GC Standards Committee is looking into
working on a state-wide GIS layer coordinate system standard/guideline which would be the same as that of the
Metro-wide guideline used by MetroGIS: UTM, Zone 15, NAD83. Kotz reported that DOT has developed an Arc Macro Language
(AML) program to convert between county coordinates, state plane and UTM for all Minnesota counties.
7. MetroGIS Information Needs Project
Cialek reported that the Information Needs project is taking two tracks. One is to develop a framing model or
business object model for information needed by MetroGIS participants. The second is to survey, identify and rank the
information needs of MetroGIS participants. The results of the survey are complete, with the top 4 information needs
being 1. jurisdictional boundaries, 2. addressable street networks, 3. land use plans, and 4. parcel boundaries. The
Policy Board has directed MetroGIS to begin looking deeper into these four needs and approved a list of seven steps
(handout) to be taken with each.
8. Jurisdictional Boundaries Working Group
Kotz reported on the jurisdictional boundaries focus group meeting that occurred Monday, June 2nd. A group of
approximately a dozen "subject matter experts" met with facilitators to more specifically define the need for
jurisdictional boundaries. The group listed more than 15 types of boundaries that were potentially "jurisdictional
boundaries" of interest to the group. The group then picked the top three: county, city/township and school district
boundaries. They then outlined the types of questions/problems that need to be answered or resolved with each of these,
including: Who ultimately defines the boundary, who resolves disputes, who has this data and how accurate is it; and
what accuracy is needed for MetroGIS. It was unclear at the end of the focus group meeting exactly what the next step
is, however a turnaround document is being prepared and should help define the process further.
9. Next Steps for the Standards Team
Standards Team members agreed that our role with respect to jurisdictional boundaries and future information
needs categories is very unclear. All agreed that we need a clear set of instructions before we can proceed further.
Kotz suggested that a member of the Standards Team should get together with a member of the content team, and perhaps
one other and write a brief, but specific scope of what the Standards Team's role is with respect to jurisdictional
boundaries. This scope can then be reviewed and modified by Standards and Content Team members until we agree on what
our respective roles are. Standards Team members felt this was an appropriate way to proceed.
Additionally, the whole topic of positional accuracy standards for datasets was discussed at length. Team
members felt that this is actually a topic in and of itself that may need to be addressed apart from any specific
dataset or data need category. One specific question is: Should the Standards Team be recommending specific horizontal
positional tolerance levels for each given dataset?
10. Other Items
Members agreed not to set a next meeting date until we have specific instructions on what to do.
11. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 AM.
Prepared by Mark Kotz, GIS Specialists, Metropolitan Council
|
