Maximizing the Value of Geospatial Data

Funded largely by taxpayer dollars, geospatial data is critical to infrastructure development and maintenance. To maximize return on these investments, better geospatial coordination is needed among state, local, and government agencies.

“In addition to policy changes and funding commitments, early adoption of new and emerging technologies is important to the goal of maximizing return on geospatial investments”

"Map once, use many times" is a much heralded expression within the geospatial user community. Noting the ability of mapping data to benefit numerous end-user applications, the tagline promotes geospatial coordination across all levels of government for wise use of limited funds. As an example, parcel data collected by a municipality for tax evaluations can also be used for regional economic development, state transportation planning, and federal homeland security. The concept is straightforward and given the economic timing, especially relevant. Bringing this vision to reality, however, has proved much more complicated.

Paper meets digital
Geospatial data has long been tied to infrastructure, with specialized surveying and mapping deliverables supporting various phases of project planning, design, and maintenance. What has changed over the past couple of decades is the format of these data products. As a society now fully entrenched in the digital world, it may be surprising to learn that planners and engineers relied on paper maps well into the 1980s. In fact, it wasn't until the early 1990s that digital mapping became a possibility with the scanning of aerial photography. Since that time, a number of major advances in remote sensing, computing, and telecommunications have served to bring the entire mapping process fully digital, from data acquisition, to processing, to delivery, and analysis.

This digital revolution has offered many advantages, production throughput and data flexibility chief among them. Digital mapping systems generate data in a fraction of the time previously required and offer many choices in data output. Multispectral systems allow aerial mapping data to be delivered in natural color, color-infrared, or panchromatic renditions, depending on current and subsequent data needs; panoramic systems enable simultaneous vertical and oblique mapping; laser and radar systems provide day and night acquisition of 3D elevation data; and visualization tools provide spatially accurate viewing of entire city scenes in three dimensions.

The potential uses for these data are nearly limitless, fueling complex analyses to support multiple end-user needs. And yet, when it comes to procuring geospatial data, technology has far outpaced policy. Still grounded in the single-application, single-user era of paper maps, hundreds of geospatial projects are contracted each year with little interagency coordination. This process works against the efficiency and flexibility gains afforded by all-digital mapping. The result: data gaps, data redundancy, and missed opportunity.

Emergencies prove the point
Emergencies tend to highlight system failures rather dramatically and the 2004-2005 hurricane seasons proved this out in Florida. In responding to an unprecedented number of storms, the Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDEM) found themselves hampered by problems associated with inconsistent geospatial data quality, system compatibility, and poor data sharing arrangements between various jurisdictions. FDEM is now leading an effort to address these issues through statewide coordination. While they remain optimistic and dedicated to the goal, it is by all accounts an uphill battle given budget restrictions in the current economy.

The issues identified within Florida are mirrored across the country with countless local, state, and federal agencies struggling to coordinate data acquisition and sharing among conflicting budget cycles, data needs and standards, and privacy restrictions. FEMA's Mapping and Analysis Center (MAC), for example, has the daunting task of providing geospatial analysis, situational awareness, and operational support during natural disasters, emergency situations, and major national events. As with FDEM, the lack of consistent data across geographic regions, makes it difficult for the MAC to provide the analysis needed for adequate response.

The importance of data ownership
The lack of data sharing isn't always related to inter-agency coordination. Sometimes, the issue comes down to licensing. While base mapping data for the most part is procured on a fee-for-services basis, satellite, oblique, and some terrain mapping providers license data in a way similar to software agreements. Depending on the license, that could mean that a state agency is unable to provide access to a local agency and visa versa. While licensing data often lowers the price of procurement significantly, many users find the model overly restrictive. According to a white paper recently produced for the Alaska Statewide Digital Mapping Initiative, 99 percent of respondents to a user survey indicated that full public access to geospatial base mapping would enhance their organization's work through increased data availability.

Solutions to the problem
To fully adopt the "map once, use many times" philosophy, a national approach is in order. While the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) was established for this very purpose in 1994, efforts to implement the framework have been slow and unsteady. It's an issue that is beginning to gain attention, as evidenced in a recent hearing on federal geospatial data management held by the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. In opening remarks to the hearing, Representative Jim Costa stated, "The dramatic advances in technology over the past several years raise questions about whether we need to reevaluate how the federal government manages geospatial data and activities."

Advocacy by the National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC) falls close in line with Costa's assertion. With states and local governments now responsible for procuring an increasing percentage of the country's geospatial information, they want-and deserve-a seat at the NSDI table. In a paper entitled, "A Strategic Framework for the National Spatial Data Infrastructure" NSGIC lays out their case, calling for full state and local partnership among the NSDI, as well as inclusive governance, implementation of new "for the nation" baseline mapping programs, and long-term collaborative funding strategies among all users.

In addition to policy changes and funding commitments, early adoption of new and emerging technologies is important to the goal of maximizing return on geospatial investments. Take panoramic mapping as an example. The system, newly launched by Fugro EarthData in July 2009, enables high resolution panoramic imaging for comprehensive 3D mapping from multiple viewing angles. The technology offers even greater efficiency than traditional digital imaging sensors, with automated processing and visualization capabilities to meet a full range of user needs, from base mapping, to oblique imaging, to terrain modeling and 3D feature extraction.