Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Landgate Roads WALIS Roads Working Group Presentation Marty Stamatis Manager, Geospatial Maintenance September 2009 www.landgate.wa.gov.au.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Landgate Roads WALIS Roads Working Group Presentation Marty Stamatis Manager, Geospatial Maintenance September 2009 www.landgate.wa.gov.au."— Presentation transcript:

1 Landgate Roads WALIS Roads Working Group Presentation Marty Stamatis Manager, Geospatial Maintenance September 2009

2 Roads Data / Database Current Environment - GREAT  ArcInfo 7 – Coverage environment utilising Librarian  Data Repository  Export facilities Topographic Database  Topographic Geodatabase o ESRI Versioned Multi-user Geodatabase o ArcSDE 9.3.1, Oracle 10g o ArcGIS 9.3.1, PLTS & JTX (Out of the box solution) o Some customised tools (e.g. Metadata interface)  Database characteristics o Four themes (Ground Surface, Cultural, Hydrography, Transport) o 2D o Persistent Identifiers o Feature Level Metadata o Incremental Update (time stamps) o Uses Topology to manage spatial issues Roads in the Topographic Database  Implementation date: 1 st quarter 2010

3 Business Drivers Fundamental theme of the Topographic Database Landgate manages an integrated roads dataset  Data normally managed by different authorities (MRWA roads, LGA roads, DEC roads, tracks, etc.) Integral to the land development process  Road Name assignment (Geographic Names Database - GEONOMA)  Road Name extents (GEONOMA)  Concept roads / Proposed roads / Surveyed roads SmartPlan, MapViewer and Valuation Services requirements Addressing requirement Mapping requirement  Street Directory  Travellers Atlas  Touring Maps  Web Products (future)  State Topographic Map Series (future) Raw data requirement (external data users)  WALIS users  PSMA  Private users

4 Roads Project Roads Centreline Quality Improvement Project (RocQI)  Update the spatial currency of the data  Update the attribute currency of the data  Resolve spatial structural issues (e.g. spatial mismatches)  3 year project (started late 2004)  Precursor to migrating the roads data into the Topographic Database Pre-migration data preparation  Currently in progress (scheduled completion date: end of 2009)  Whole-of-State approach to the data o Minimisation of the GREAT tile structure > 101tiles o Attribute consistency check o GEONOMA check o Metadata reconciliation o Inclusion of MRWA Road Number Data migration  Scheduled completion date: 1 st quarter 2010  User consultation  Minor data model changes  Data model mapping (GREAT -> Topographic Database)  User system synchronisation Post-migration data processing  Addition of MRWA Structure number on bridges, tunnels etc.  Validation and population of other road attributes (previously out of scope)

5 Road Maintenance Status (State wide)

6 Road Maintenance Status (South-West)

7 Data characteristics Physical road (pavement) NOT the cadastral road centreline Data / Mapping centric NOT Asset Management or In-car navigation centric Addressing requirements  Property Street Address (PSA) and Rural Street Address (RSA) o Approved name o Need for Driveways (for RSA) o Starting point for RSA number o Building linked to address Data / Mapping requirements  A Network o A set of contiguous lines that represent the centrelines of the as-built roads. The network can be used to determine the shortest linear distance/route between any two points on the network.  Hierarchies o Freeways/Highways/Mains – both MRWA centric and Mapping centric  Mapping Classifications o A variety of mapping centric attributes, including: Road classifications e.g. main/secondary roads, malls, laneways, etc. Surface type - sealed, unsealed, etc. Number of Lanes o Road usage Tracks - 2WD and 4WD Bus Lanes

8 Data characteristics Data / Mapping requirements  Concept roads / Proposed roads / Surveyed roads / as built roads  Road Status o Operations o Relegated o Closed  Road Access Rights - information for road custodians and end users o DEC requirements (e.g. DEC management access, DRA access) o Public vs. Private  Road Custodians o MRWA o LGA o DEC  Inclusion of other agency data o DEC roads (Topographic Database contains some DEC roads, additional roads will be added as DEC complete their road inventory) o DEC requirements (e.g. strategic vs. non-strategic roads)  Links to other data o MRWA Road number (currently being populated) o MRWA Structure number (future link, currently in the Topographic Database model)  Information for end users  Metadata  Incremental update

9 Data characteristics Data / Mapping requirements  Traffic Flow Direction – in the model but not populated  Speed Limit – not in the model  Turning Restrictions – not in the model

10 Road Segment Feature Class and Sub Types

11 Road Segment Feature Class

12 Road Segment Feature Class Domains

13 Land Development Process When does a road become a road Planning Department Landgate Geographic Names and Cadastral Database Local Government Land Developer TOPOGRAPHIC DATABASE Concept Approved Name and sketch spatial Survey Approved Name with better spatial As Built Approved Name, spatial that matches aerial image Name Approval, Cadastral surveys MRWA DEC (Improved roads) Approval + Road Number allocation Submits a proposal Approval Other Agencies Via ROMAN Improved roads (spatial/attribute) replace

14 Shared Data Maintenance – Virtual Desktop Master Database

15 Routable Road Centreline Network considerations Things to consider  Who is and what are the drivers for the dataset? o Would the requester be prepared to pay for the building and maintenance of the dataset?  What is the minimum requirement of the road network? o Spatial requirements? o Attribute requirements?  Can we identify the essential attributes vs. the “nice to have” ones? o Who is the custodian of these attributes? o What is the degree of difficulty associated with providing the attributes? o What is the degree of difficulty with maintaining the attribute?  How do we minimize / eliminate duplication in the “Roads” space? o Is there a need for multiple datasets, short term and longer term? o How do we better synchronize multiple datasets?  Are there any legal issues that need to be considered? o What is the implication if we gat a “Speed Limit” wrong? o What happens when we say you can turn right but you can’t? o Are there any roads that we shouldn’t show?

16 SKM Routable Road Centreline Network - Data Study Recommendations Ensure that the development and maintenance of a RRCN will deliver tangible business benefits which outweigh costs  Undertake a further, more detailed assessment to more closely define the requirements, costs and practicality of developing and maintaining the dataset  Explore potential business models for developing and maintaining the dataset in partnership with the private sector  Develop a rigorous business case which: o Defines the costs of developing the dataset o Defines the maintenance costs (based on a formal and well-documented maintenance process) o Confirms the business benefits to EM agencies o Confirms what can realistically be delivered by the dataset, as compared to expectations which agencies may have for its reliability (particularly for EM use) o Defines realistic market opportunities for providing access to the dataset to the private sector, potential market value and revenue Carefully assess the maintenance implications prior to the development of the dataset  Define a practical and achievable maintenance process which ensures that the required elements are supplied by custodians on a regular basis  Ensure that there is a genuine commitment by custodians of the required elements which demonstrate business benefits to them  For local government develop a realistic maintenance process which considers a range of options (these could include goodwill, shared maintenance mechanisms, funding for maintenance or legislative change)  Assess the opportunities for shared maintenance of the dataset (for example between WAPS, FESA, MRWA and DLI)

17 SKM Routable Road Centreline Network - Data Study Recommendations Improve the maintenance and quality of the existing datasets as part of the overall initiative  Align the development of an improved data maintenance process (under ROCQI) with any RRCN initiative  Develop the RRCN as a holistic initiative which addresses potential quality improvements to the property street address dataset Develop the dataset in manageable stages  Develop the dataset to initially deliver only the 3 fundamental elements identified (speed limits, flow direction, turning restrictions) by this Data Study (or 4 including height and weight restrictions)  Develop the dataset to initially cover the metropolitan area only, with a view to expanding coverage the Emergency Services Directory areas as a following release The dataset should be developed, where possible as part of a national framework  The ICSM should be kept closely informed of progress to help ensure alignment with a national RRCN  The dataset should be developed in line with a national framework using lessens learnt from similar projects such as EuroRoadS

18 SKM Routable Road Centreline Network - Data Study Risks A RRCN used for developing recommended routes could direct a vehicle along a route which cannot be travelled. Mitigation strategies:  Focus on data maintenance to deliver maximum overall reliability  Gain input from users of the data in the maintenance process  Hold a forum to manage EM expectations of the dataset and specifically workshop this issue Agencies may be unable to support the ongoing maintenance process and associated costs. Mitigation strategies are:  Ensure that stakeholders’ commitment to maintaining the dataset is based on tangible benefits to them, rather than goodwill  In the case of LGA’s develop a realistic maintenance process which considers a range of options (these could include goodwill, shared maintenance mechanisms, funding for maintenance or legislative change) For EM use drivers/navigators will develop an over-reliance on recommended routes. Mitigation strategies are:  Work closely with FESA and WAPS to determine how recommended routes would be handled and the impact of any unreliability on the overall benefits of a RRCN Data updates may not be supplied by LGAs at the required frequency. Mitigation strategies are:  Develop a realistic maintenance process which considers a range of options (these could include goodwill, shared maintenance mechanisms, funding for maintenance or legislative change)

19 Routable Road Centreline Network Requirements

20 Contact Details Marty Stamatis Postal Address:Landgate 1 Midland Square MIDLAND 6056 Phone Number: (08) (w) (m)


Download ppt "Landgate Roads WALIS Roads Working Group Presentation Marty Stamatis Manager, Geospatial Maintenance September 2009 www.landgate.wa.gov.au."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google