NSGIC Member, and Some Friends, Found Among GovTech's "Top 25"
Long time NSGIC member Eric Swanson (Michigan) is among the Top 25 Doers, Dreamers and Drivers for 2010 selected by the editors of Government Technology magazine. Each march, the magazine fociuses on 25 people who"cut through the public sector's infamous barriers to innovation -- tight budgets, organizational inertia, politics as usual, etc. -- to reshape government operations for the better."
Eric Swanson is noted for his work at Michigan's Center for Shared Solutions and Technology Partnerships.
The center's mission is "to transform government with IT being the catalyst, fostering collaboration across government lines," and Swanson and his team have worked hard to make that possible over the years.
Among the rest of the Top 25 are a number of friends of NSGIC and state and local technology leaders who have helped state GIS coordination along the way. They include:
Utah CTO David Fletcher -- According to Bert Granberg, and Matt Peters, of Utah, Mr. Fletcher is "a great champion of GIS and is very supportive of AGRC." They add that he is working on location based services for state and local government in Utahand has spearheaded the drive for a data.utah.gov portal.
Virginia deputy secretary of technology Karen Jackson -- Virginia's Dan Widner reports that Ms. Jackson is leading the charge on Broadband in Virginia and is doing some great behind the scenes work with the industry and the feds on “connectivity” issues.
Colorado CIO Mike Locatis -- I thought I must have met Mr. Locatis at some point, but itr turns out that I have simply heard him mentioned whenever Jon Gottsegen speaks about success at GIS Coordination in Colorado. Thet wo apparently have worked closely together.
Beth Noveck, of the Obama Administration, is well-known among the NSGIC community for her spearheading of government transparency initiatives.
The following is a guest post from Tim De Troy (SC) and Bill Burgess (Washington Liaison) who represent NSGIC in the Digital Coast Partnership. The Digital Coast Partnership, led by the NOAA Coastal Services Center, is intended to be an information delivery system to efficiently serve not only data, but also the training, tools, and examples needed to turn data into useful information for the coastal states.
The Coastal Inundation Toolkit
The Coastal Inundation Toolkit has continued to evolve with many new materials provided by the partners. In addition, County Snapshots are now complete for the continental United States and Hawaii. But please note that some counties are missing. The data does not exist for these counties and it may be quite some time before the missing counties are included.
One example of a new resource in the Toolkit is an issue brief from the National Association of Counties (NACO) — Building Resilient Coastal Communities: Counties and the Digital Coast (PDF). Other members of the Partnership, such as The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the Association of State Flood Plain Managers (ASFPM) have also added new materials to the Toolkit.
Land Cover Atlas
A great new land cover tool has been released. It is the C-CAP Land Cover Atlas. When you launch the viewer, it allows you to go to any coastal county to see how land cover has changed over time between the identified classes. It also allows you to obtain a written report of the changes by clicking on the “Stats and Downloads” tab next to the image area. With a little practice, we’re sure your coastal managers will find this to be a very valuable tool.
Training Opportunities
Habitat Priority Planner Web Demonstrations — The Habitat Priority Planner is a GIS-based decision support tool that helps to identify priority locations for conservation and restoration planning. Web demonstrations that highlight the tool’s functionality are offered on the last Monday of each month. To sign up, send an e-mail to nos.csc.hpp@noaa.gov.
CanVis Virtual Workshops — CanVis is a visual simulation tool that enables users to add objects to images in order to visualize impacts of future management decisions. Virtual workshops are offered the third Wednesday of each month. The workshops provide an introduction to CanVis with hands-on activities. Register by e-mailing nos.csc.canvis@noaa.gov.
Introduction to N-SPECT Training — Land use professionals use the Nonpoint-Source Pollution and Erosion Comparison Tool (N-SPECT) to investigate potential water quality impacts from land use and land cover changes, including development, and from environmental disturbances such as storms and climate change. The hands-on GIS-based workshop will cover how N-SPECT is commonly used, relay helpful tips, and give participants the opportunity to ask questions. Advance registration is required as seating is limited. Visit the N-SPECT training page to learn more. The next session is scheduled for April 15, 2010.
Editor’s Note: In addition, we are told that there is a planned Digital Coast session at the 2010 National Planning Conference (April 10 – 13, in New Orleans). All of the members of the Partnership will be represented. And Miki Schmidt of the Coastal Services Center will be a featured Keynote Speaker at the 2010 Delaware GIS Conference, March 30, in Dover, Delaware.
Ian Von Essen, of the state of Washington, is now a member of the NSGIC Board of Directors. He was Appointed by NSGIC President Will Craig and approved by the Board at their February 23, 2010, meeting to complete the term of California's Michael Byrne, who has stepped down to take a job in Washington DC.
Mr. Von Essen, who is on the Washington Geographic Information Council (WAGIC), works for Spokane County and brings a fine balance of local and state government viewpoints that will add to the mix in NSGIC Board discussions. He currently serves as Chair-Elect for WAGIC and will become that group's Chair in June of this year. This will be his fifth term as WAGIC Chair since 2000.
The NSGIC Board term that Mr. Von Essen has been appointed to ends this fall when the seat is up for re-election at the 2010 NSGIC Annual Conference, in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
The President's budget for USGS proposes a $3.5 million cut in the National Geospatial Program. This cut means the loss of 13 state liaisons. With some liaison serving more than one state, this could affect one-third of the states.
"The USGS liaisons have provided the best single conduit for partnerships between the states and the Federal government," said NSGIC President Will Craig in a letter to the leaders of the House Appropriations Subcommittee that will be the first to review the President's budget.
The budget cut will also reduce federal partnership dollars that have leveraged significant investment in state and local data development projects. Craig went on to say, "If anything, we request that Congress significantly increase these partnership dollars, not cut them."
Craig is urging NSGIC members and friends to contact their Members of Congress, especially in the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. "Tell them about the value of the USGS liaisons and partnership funds. States need these resources."
The latest agenda for the Midyear meeting has been posted to NSGIC 2010 Midyear web page. Although there may be last minute changes, this agenda is finalized at this time.
Registration for the Midyear remains open. Please visit the NSGIC website to download a copy of the registration brochure or access the online registration page.
We’ve been able to get an extension on the cut-off date at the Loews Annapolis Hotel! The hotel will continue to offer the NSGIC discounted rate of $120 per night until Wednesday, February 24th. This is the approved Federal Government Per Diem rate. Don’t wait to make your reservations. Call the hotel directly at (410) 263-7777 to make your reservation and be sure to ask for the NSGIC group rate. Be sure to call before February 22nd, as this rate will NOT be available after that date.
Registration for the 2010 Midyear Conference is available. Please visit the NSGIC website (http://www.nsgic.org/events/2010_midyear.cfm) to download a copy of the registration brochure or access the online registration page.
As always, please don’t hesitate to contact me if you should need any additional information. I’m looking forward to seeing all of you in Annapolis!
Tony Spicci Tony.Spicci@mdc.mo.gov 573.882.9909 ext 3295
A workshop on Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) was held in Herndon VA, January 12-13. The workshop was sponsored by USGS with a goal of exploring the potential use of VGI as part of The National Map.
Some fascinating presentations were made by people who use VGI for gathering and sharing information: folks from Open Street Map, Wikimedia, and the Library of Congress. Their Point Presentations and notes from the meeting are now available as part of the Workshop Results.
Will Craig, NSGIC president, attended the conference and facilitated the breakout section on Business Perspectives - what does it take to organize and administer a VGI? He comments on the workshop:
I was fascinated by the energy in the room. Many folks were eager to get started NOW. "Jump in with both feet. People will forgive you if you make a mistake. Seize the day." Others worried about costs, administrative issues, and losing credibility.
Unfortunately a presentation by Muki Haklay, University College London, is not among the PPTs. He analyzed VGI quality compared to the Ordnance Survey authoritative street maps and found very high levels of alignment.
Local governments and states have geographic information they'd like to volunteer to The National Map. That is the real vision of the NSDI. NSGIC would love to see procedures in place to accept our VGI.
Update (2/15/10): Haklay's work comparing Open Street Maps to Ordnance Survey Maps can be found on-line (courtesy Adena Schutzberg, Directions Magazine)
This draft is the result of five years of work by the URISA Address Standard Working Group (ASWG), an effort that has been watched and supported by many in NSGIC and the larger GIS community, including NSGIC President Will Craig, of Minnesota, who helped lead a NSGIC Address Work Group. The need for national address data is part of the current NSGIC Advocacy Agenda (PDF).
Will Craig notes that Ed Wells, from URISA, was a member of the NSGIC working group and was a leader in developing the draft standard.
We early-on recognized that it would be hard open the Census Bureau's Master Address File (MAF) for public use to fulfill our need for a nation-wide address resource. Title 13 of the US Code and Census Bureau sensitivities would require an act of Congress to overcome. If we are going to have a nation-wide address resource, it will be build from the ground up by cities and counties.
To make it work nation-wide, we need this standard. I am delighted to see it delivered to the FGDC for formal review. I trust the review will be quick and thorough. We need this now.
The following is a guest-post from national metadata advocate Lynda Wayne. In January, she put out a request to the NSGIC Community for input on her project to document "a set of practical measures to encourage/facilitate data sharing." This was part of an effort to assist to Dr. Tim De Troye and the Geospatial Administrators Association of South Carolina (GAASC) in developing the Process Framework for Developing Local Government Data Access Policies document (shared by Tim on this blog in January) and to add some "real world" content to a follow-up SC GIS conference presentation and discussion. Here is what she found out.
Issue: Variable Data Sharing Agreements
Data sharing agreements vary greatly in their complexity, effectiveness and requirements. When trying to share data among multiple organizations, managing differences and conflicts among agreements can be overwhelming.
What works:
Handshakes making share Admin is on board
Collaboratively developed, effective, standardized data sharing agreements
What doesn’t:
Formal agreements because they typically include imprecise language that can serve as road blocks and add unnecessary overhead to the effort
Over-involvement on the part of Administration and Legal personnel that leads to overly burdensome language in an effort to cover all the bases and possible scenarios
Issue: Missing or Out of Date Data Documentation
If data are not well-documented then they cannot be applied as fully or appropriately and competing/conflicting data sets can emerge.
What works:
Providing metadata creation, review and management support in return for data access
Support for a community-wide metadata training and support organization/resource
What doesn’t:
Trying to create metadata by guessing at how the data were created
Issue: Maintaining Personal Privacy and Public Safety
Data developers have an obligation to protect the privacy and safety of their constituents.
What works:
Utilizing the FGDC Guidelines(PDF) as to what data should be shared
Utilize available standards (e.g. URISA/FGDC Addressing standard) that address privacy and security issues
Generalizing data such that non-sensitive content is still available
Public Record Laws and ‘policies from above’ that explicitly include geospatial data and establish clear guidelines as to who can access the data and how to request access
Recognizing that very little data is truly ‘sensitive’
What doesn’t:
Wholesale approaches that eliminate sharing of all ‘potentially’ sensitive data
Over-involvement on the part of Administration and Legal personnel that attempt to cover all the bases
Issue: Maintaining Control of the Data
Data, like any resources, is subject to personal, professional and/or political control issues.
What works:
Earnest dialog to identify precise concerns and brainstorm on innovative solutions
Data management models that allow the use of data that is maintained in your system
Data steward / trusted source models
What doesn’t:
Treating public data as a private resource
Issue: Data Misuse and Exploitation
Once data is in the hands of others in can be inappropriately applied or resold for profit.
What works:
Metadata, metadata, metadata that includes valid ‘Use Constraints’, ‘Distribution Liability’ and ‘Purpose’ statements
Clear, not ‘legalese’, explanation of license/copyright requirements and mandatory acknowledgement by the consumer
Making data freely accessible so that consumers easily use current version rather than trying to milk the older data
What doesn’t:
Stifling the use of data in new and innovative ways – if somebody makes a product somebody else is willing to pay for that drives the economy and enterprise.
Issue: Reduced Capacity and Infrastructure to Support Data Serving and Exchange
Most organizations have a mission to serve their own constituents and are staffed/resourced specifically to that mission.
What works:
Money - especially if designated to build and maintain data sharing capacity – new data collection, hardware, software, training
A simplified process that adds no burden to the data provider
Documenting the return on investment that data sharing can yield to warrant capacity building
What doesn’t:
One time payments for data that are not targeted to capacity growth
What say you, gentle readers? Feel free to add any thoughts in the comments section.
NSGIC is making progress on the goals set out in its 2009 - 2011 Strategic Plan. An updated version of the plan(PDF) has been posted on the NSGIC web site. It includes the findings of a team tasked by the NSGIC Board to review the plan and measure progress, so far, on all 23 goals in the plan.
The group used a 4-point scoring criteria, ranging from 0, for goals which are no longer relevant and that the group felt should be dropped, to 3, for goals that have been met.
Three of the goals were judged to be no longer relevant. Four others were found to have limited progress, so far. Of the remaining 16 goals, good progress was found on nine and seven others have already been met.
"Over two-thirds of the goals are met or are progressing well," writes NSGIC President Will Craig, of Minnesota, in a cover letter. "Adjusting for the three goals the team recommended dropping, the level of good progress amounts to 80 percent."
But, he added, "That still leaves significant work to be done."
The review was officially adopted by the Board at its November 24, 2009 meeting.
The following is stolen shamelessly from an e-mail from USGS Metadata Guru Sharon Shin, who gives credit to National Metadata Champion Lynda Wayne (and family): Metadata in the Movies!
It seems Lynda and her family watched the movie Beyond a Reasonable Doubt the other day and, as Sharon puts it, "there is a scene that made her sit up straight – two very nerdy guys discuss metadata and image pattern recognition."
It's more than that. The scene has a small sample of dialogue that all (conscientious) GIS pros have found themselves reciting at some point, though not in a major motion picture and not (at least for me, so far) in the service of solving crimes.
By the way, if you plan to watch this film sometime, don't watch this clip. It contains a spoiler.
Government is under pressure to show where stimulus dollars are being spent. A new report rates state websites on how well they show the distribution of funds within their borders. Maps play a critical part in this.
Good Jobs First, a non-profit research center based in Washington, DC, has just published Show Us the Stimulus (Again), an update of a similar report last July. It shows great improvements in the states’ ability to document where the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) dollars are being spent. Some $200 billion dollars are flowing through the states.
The report ranks the states on their ability to show where the money is going. Scores range from 5-87 on a 100 point scale. GIS and mapping contribute greatly to the ability of states to score well in this review. Maryland is rated #1. Three of the seven rating criteria are based on geography:
Map the distribution of funding at the county level or equivalent.
Compare that distribution with patterns of economic distress.
URISA (the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association) is looking for nominations for the 2010 class of inductees to its GIS Hall of Fame which "recognizes and honors the best in GIS."
Nominations are open to persons in any profession and are not limited to those with relationships with URISA. The selection criteria are listed on the URISA web site:
At least 25 years of sustained professional involvement in the GIS field.
Original and creative contributions to the field.
Well known and respected by a wide range of peers.
Consistent demonstration of sound professional and personal ethics.
To better keep our users informed about all TNRIS activities, we are very pleased to announce that we will now be blogging about all our activities and sharing some of the behind-the-scenes information that may be beneficial to you. We also highly encourage your comments on any of our posts and we will use them in a very constructive manner.
The TNRIS Blog uses Posterous, a blogging system described by its founders as "the dead simple way to put anything online using email."
South Carolina Publishes a Guide to Developing Data Access Policies
Editor's Note: The following is a guest-post from Dr. Timothy M. De Troye, GISP, South Carolina State GIS Coordinator and member of the NSGIC Board of Directors.
The Geospatial Administrators Association of South Carolina has published a guide to help local governments, as well as all other levels of government and the private sector, develop and implement GIS data access policies.
The guide -- A Process Framework for Developing Local Government Data Access Policies (PDF) -- grew out of discussions at the 2009 South Carolina statewide GIS conference. An informal poll discovered that some GIS organizations did not have a GIS data access policy, while others had a rudimentary policy, but almost no organization had a formalized approach in developing such policies. that led to a project focused on data access, data distribution and permitted uses that resulted in the creation of a guide to help GIS departments to step through the thought process on developing a policy.
The guide takes into account key stakeholder personnel, different types of data, and different approaches to managing that data. Contributions to the document came from multiple organizations and levels of government including municipal, county, state, and federal agencies as well as from a utility. While the document is written with the local organization in mind, it is applicable to different levels of government and can be used as a vehicle for policy development within the private sector.
From the Overview:
In many organizations, the GIS manager has been charged with establishing GIS data access policy for the organization without the official authority to do so and without understanding the implications associated with policy implementation. Often, the result is a policy that is not formally adopted or a policy that has been established strictly from a legal perspective.
The document serves as a process framework for developing an effective GIS data access policy. GIS managers can use this framework to help decision makers understand and formulate a GIS data access policy for their entire organization. The process encourages decision makers to review options for data distribution and carefully consider how implementing a policy will impact the organization, staff, private citizens, the business community, and other government
agencies.
The goal is to enlighten and inform decision makers about specific GIS data access policy decisions. The goal is not for all government organizations to have the same policies, but for each organization to formulate policies using an informed and well thought out process.
The document outlines a series of data access policy components that should be considered during policy development. Information about the components, suggested participants, and potential implications are presented for each. Readers are encouraged to utilize these components as a framework for policy development and to expand the content as needed to address the specific concerns of their organization.
To help facilitate understanding and discussion, the document is written from the perspective of a non-GIS practitioner. This is the product of a collaborative effort among members of the Geospatial Administrators Association of South Carolina (GAASC).
Editor's Note: The following is a guest post from Dennis Goreham, retired GIS coordinator for Utah, and a member of the National Geospatial Advisory Committee.
The National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC) has endorsed, as a concept, a paper crafted by the NGAC Governance Subcommittee which seeks to promote the development of a National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) by creating a more precise definition of the NSDI and of a set of metrics needed to measure progress towards the NSDI.
The paper – a Proposal to Measure Progress Toward Realizing the NSDI Vision (PDF) – takes as its central theme the truism that “what cannot be measured, cannot be managed.” It was presented at the December NGAC meeting and resulted in instruction that the Subcommittee begin implementation, including outreach to refine the metrics approach.
The initial categories of metrics selected by the committee address many aspects of the NSDI beyond its original data-centric definition:
Societal metrics intended to determine the extent to which geospatial data, processing and applications have become part of the general information infrastructure and decision support process;
Environmental measures which describe the full extent of geospatial activities and their economic implications;
Data metrics providing evidence of progress toward the initial completion or the ongoing maintenance of framework data layers at a minimum;
Technology metrics for the fitness and quality of the underlying technology infrastructure in use across relevant organizations; and
Governance metrics to measure progress toward the realization of a national governance structure for the NSDI.
Readers should note that the proposed measures are national in scope, and not merely federal. There are many opportunities, even responsibilities, for the states and for NSGIC to participate in measuring, analyzing, and communicating metrics that will help manage the NSDI.
The plan includes a snapshot of the current state of GIS in Virginia, a shared vision for where the GIS community wants to go, strategic goals and next steps to take them there.
On December 18, 2009, Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley signed an Executive Order entitled "One Maryland - One Map; Maryland Integrated Map (MD iMap)" (PDF) that establishes an organizational structure to guide and coordinate inter-agency and intergovernmental efforts to share geospatial data and tools in Maryland.
The order identifies and defines the role of an Executive Committee, including the Secretaries of all the state's cabinet agencies, and formally identifies and defines the role of the State Geographic Information Officer (GIO) as well as that of the Technical Committee.
(NSGIC's own) Kenny Miller, who has been filling the role for all practical purposes for some time, is the designated GIO and will move later this year from his long-term home in Maryland's Department of Natural Resources to the Department of Information Technology.
The executive order is focused on the creation of a "Maryland Integrated Map (MD iMap), which will serve as a statewide basemap and help state agencies to "better implement and coordinate policies across the State."
"The execution of the Executive Order has been a long time in coming and reflects the value of laying the foundation over the years to prepare for this eventuality. It also reflects the rapid increase in interest at the highest levels of State government in providing Marylanders with information of how their government allocates funds and where those funds are spent" reflects Kenny Miller, who becomes the State's first-ever GIO.
"The Maryland State Geographic Information Committee (MSGIC) began in the early 1990's to grow GIS technology and foster collaboration and communication to among the various partners. It wasn't until the O'Malley-Brown Administration began, in early 2007, to demand agencies use GIS to both target program efforts and funds and to measure progress that the interest on formalizing the governance and official capacity of the GIO really took root. This represents a win for all those who have labored to make this day a reality."
The Governor will provide strategic direction to the Executive Committee, which will be chaired by the Secretary of Information Technology. The Director of the Governor's StateStat office will be vice-chair.
The Executive Council, which will be a "subcabinet" and will advise the Governor on all issues pertaining to the MD iMAP, will designate a Technical Committee, headed by the GIO, to oversee the day to day activities needed to create the MD iMAP.
