|
The meeting began at 8:30 AM in at the Land Management Information Center (LMIC) in the Centennial Building.
Members Present: David Windle, City of Roseville; Dick Carlstrom, TIES; Chris Cialek, LMIC; Jay Krafthefer,
Washington County; Paul Leegard, Anoka County; Bob Moulder, Hennepin County; James Piegat, Hennepin Conservation
District; Scott Renne, City of Minneapolis; Ron Wencl, U.S. Geological Survey
Support Staff: Mark Kotz, Metropolitan Council
Others: Mike Schadauer, MN DOT
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
Kotz gave a brief overview of the last Data Content Advisory Team meeting and the Coordinating Committee
meeting. (See notes for those meetings on MetroGIS web page for details). Kotz mentioned the state GIS/LIS conference
in St. Cloud on October 1-3. Several good workshops on the 1st.
5. Address Issues and Guidelines document update
Windle mentioned that the Coordinating Committee has not yet acted on the address standards recommendation
dated June 4th. Kotz explained that the Coordinating Committee didn't have time on the agenda for the last meeting, but
will act on it at their next meeting. There was also a concern about whether the IS community had reviewed it
thoroughly enough. Kotz said that their is still some confusion about the difference between the standards
recommendation and the "Issues and Guidelines" document. Kotz will put together two separate memos (one for each) for
the next CC meeting.
6. Jurisdictional Boundaries Information Need Update & Metropolitan Council Hybrid MCD Layer
Kotz gave an overview of discussion at the recent Data Content Advisory Team meeting and the Coordinating
Committee meeting. The Content Team was interested in seeing the hybrid county & MCD boundary dataset being
developed by the Metropolitan Council become a shared MetroGIS dataset. While the discussion of this is ongoing, Kotz
felt it was important to get some feedback from the Standards Advisory Team on the process being used to develop this
hybrid layer. Kotz explained the process being used including the fact that an attribute will be tied to every line
segment to indicate the source of that line (e.g. a particular county, DOT, Met. Council, etc.). Then each data source
will be documented so that users of the hybrid layer can make some informed decisions about appropriate uses of the
data. Kotz noted that the Council has not intention of trying to resolve conflicts or disputes in municipal boundaries.
It is simply combining the data it gets from other sources. Kotz also mentioned that the Council is not planning to
redistributed this layer without the consent of those contributing data to the layer.
The following motion was passed by the team: "The Standards Advisory Team endorses the hybrid MCD layer
development process being used by the Metropolitan Council. The Team would like to evaluate the dataset once it is
complete." The team further noted that such a layer will be in need of update and improvements over time as more
accurate and up-to-date information becomes available.
7. Ad-Hoc Positional Accuracy group report
Kotz explained that positional accuracy has been a topic that has come up in the information needs process and
that many people are looking for a common language to use to talk about positional accuracy needs. Wencl added that
this topic was important for both the Governor's Council and MetroGIS and that a discussion of the National Standards
for Spatial Data Accuracy would also be valuable.
The team reviewed the draft definition of positional accuracy that would be used for the information needs
process. Most team members felt that while it left out some technical details, it generally conveyed the message. More
technical details would probably lead to confusion with non-technical people.
The team then began a lengthy discussion of the draft "Positional Accuracy Categories Description". Krafthefer
described that one of the main purposes of this work was to give non-technical people a scale or framework from which
to discuss the kind of positional accuracy they need. The categories would be very general to begin with. As more
specific examples arise and more work is done, the categories can be refined and further described into sub-categories.
Piegat and Cialek pointed out the need to also fill in the actual positional accuracy measurements associated with each
non-technical example. Leegard suggested that each of the 13 top information needs should be included in an example on
this document. Several team members noted that the terms "low, medium and high" accuracy might cause problems. For
example "low" accuracy data may be very useful for a particular purpose. We should explore other names for categories.
Krafthefer raises the question of where this process is headed. What is the long term vision. Some team
members suggested a little booklet discussing issues of positional accuracy, like the address issues booklet. Several
noted that this would be very useful although such a project may not get done without funding.
8. Minnesota Geographic Metadata Guidelines: Endorsement?
Kotz and Cialek gave a quick overview of the development of the Minnesota Geographic Metadata Guidelines.
Windle suggested we recommend that the "Policy Board recommend the use of the Minnesota Geographic Metadata Guidelines
by all MetroGIS participants." All Team members agreed. Kotz will draft a memo for the next Coordinating Committee
meeting including a background of MGMG and available tools and workshops.
9. Next Team Meeting
The next meeting was not set. We will wait until after the next Coordinating Committee meeting to get
direction.
10. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 AM.
Action Items: Kotz will modify the address issues report to the Coordinating Committee to separate the
standards recommendation from the informational document. Kotz will write a memo to the Coordinating Committee
explaining the Minnesota Geographic Metadata Guidelines and the team's recommendation to have the Policy Board endorse
them.
Prepared by Mark Kotz, GIS Specialist, Metropolitan Council
|
