Geoplatform.gov

Browse Recent Ideas

• Recent Ideas (28)
• Popular Ideas (28)
• Hot Ideas (0)

• I agree

  1 vote

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Common Data, Services and Applications »

  Need to add instructions for logging in to the application

  You fielded the application on November 9 with a press release, but have not put instructions on the web site about how to log in. When registering, the only instruction is: "Register your LDAP Account". What does that mean? I've tried a variety of login authorities (google id, etc..), and none work. Please add instructions, or if the site is not ready for users yet, put that information on the registrations and login ...more »

  You fielded the application on November 9 with a press release, but have not put instructions on the web site about how to log in. When registering, the only instruction is: "Register your LDAP Account". What does that mean? I've tried a variety of login authorities (google id, etc..), and none work. Please add instructions, or if the site is not ready for users yet, put that information on the registrations and login screens.

  « less full details »

  Add your comment for Idea: Need to add instructions for logging in to the application

  Submitted by lschueck 1 year ago

• I agree

  0 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Common Data, Services and Applications »

  Quick Wins, Designed for Change

  Deliver quick wins for common functions. Do not wait for the perfect design, rather design knowing change is imminent. Examples include pragmatic business-driven standards or a national geocoding service.

  Add your comment for Idea: Quick Wins, Designed for Change

  Submitted by Twyla McDermott 2 years ago

• I agree

  0 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Common Data, Services and Applications »

  Metadata editor design

  Following discussion on metadata list started by Anna Milan inspired by GeoSpatial Platform roadmap statement "The highest priority identified by 42% of agencies was a *metadata editor *that is FGDC compliant, web enabled, flexible and customizable. (p.37) " Subsequent discussion pointed out that it is very useful for metadata production tools to be able to scrape information from datasets that are being described (e.g. ...more »

  Following discussion on metadata list started by Anna Milan inspired by GeoSpatial Platform roadmap statement "The highest priority identified by 42% of agencies was a *metadata editor *that is FGDC compliant, web enabled, flexible and customizable. (p.37) "

  Subsequent discussion pointed out that it is very useful for metadata production tools to be able to scrape information from datasets that are being described (e.g. the way ArcCatalog 9.3 scrapes information from a feature class), and thus needs to be running in a user space from which the data can be accessed by the metadata tool (typically not the case for a web app).

  Perhaps what people are really looking for is a standardized user interface for producing and editing metadata, such that from the user's perspective, they create metadata through the same interface, whether the tool is running locally and scraping information from files on their computer, or over the web and they have to plug in everything manually. The objective is to keep reduce the amount of training/retraining that must be done.

  From this point of view, the 'standard' metadata creation user interface should present a content model that is independent from any particular metadata standard. Tool designers would connect this interface through a data access layer to whatever metadata standard and encoding was required in a particular situation.

  An example of this approach can be seen at http://mw.usgin.org/. The user creates metadata content that can be exported in csw:record (dc), FGDC or ISO xml through a single interface.

  « less full details »

  Add your comment for Idea: Metadata editor design

  Submitted by Stephen Richard 2 years ago

• I agree

  0 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Common Data, Services and Applications »

  Metadata content based on requirements

  In order to keep discussions on metadata, the starting point should be a clear statement of what questions the metadata for resources in this system is meant to address. For examples, see http://geology.usgs.gov/tools/metadata/tools/doc/ctc/ or http://lab.usgin.org/profiles/doc/metadata-content-recommendations. This leads to a content requirements specification that is independent of a particular standard; the required ...more »

  In order to keep discussions on metadata, the starting point should be a clear statement of what questions the metadata for resources in this system is meant to address. For examples, see http://geology.usgs.gov/tools/metadata/tools/doc/ctc/ or http://lab.usgin.org/profiles/doc/metadata-content-recommendations.

  This leads to a content requirements specification that is independent of a particular standard; the required content more than likely will be mappable into any of the existing standards and encodings (ISO, FGDC CSDGM, DC...)

  « less full details »

  Add your comment for Idea: Metadata content based on requirements

  Submitted by Stephen Richard 2 years ago

• I agree

  2 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Geospatial Segment Architecture »

  Language and Writing Systems are Key

  Linked to place, language or dialect should be considered important. Please review the ISO 639 family of standards and the TC37 concept standards as database system; in particular ISO 639-6, a hierarchical system of languages and dialects including an extensible system that incorporates written, spoken, signed and sung as well as the ability to code linguistic register and social/group terminology. This is key to a ...more »

  Linked to place, language or dialect should be considered important. Please review the ISO 639 family of standards and the TC37 concept standards as database system; in particular ISO 639-6, a hierarchical system of languages and dialects including an extensible system that incorporates written, spoken, signed and sung as well as the ability to code linguistic register and social/group terminology. This is key to a geospatial system that crosses cultural and knowledge boundaries providing a system that is accessible to all. Writing systems and scripts should also be taken into consideration as well as their encoding - UNICODE. The ISO 639 family of standards are freely available.

  « less full details »

  Add your comment for Idea: Language and Writing Systems are Key

  Submitted by Debbie Garside 2 years ago

• I agree

  0 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Other Ideas »

  Geospatial Cloud solutions rather than Govt hosted systems

  The federal govt has a poor track record of maintaining the hardware to support geospatial systems and keeping up with bandwidth and response time requirements.

  I recommend that the Geospatial Framework be implemented in the cloud with hardware, bandwidth and response time the responsibility of the vendor.

  1 comment for Idea: Geospatial Cloud solutions rather than Govt hosted systems

  Submitted by Robert Barber-Delach 2 years ago

• I agree

  1 vote

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Other Ideas »

  The 50 States Initiative guidelines need scrapped and rewritten

  The Fifty States Initiative guidelines fail to meet the needs of most SSDI (and consequently impede the NSDI) for several reasons… 1.) The document should state that there are no experts on facilitating data sharing between government entities within the context of the NSDI in the forward. The reader should be cautioned to read the document critically. Otherwise they may mistakenly be given the impression that NSGIC ...more »

  The Fifty States Initiative guidelines fail to meet the needs of most SSDI (and consequently impede the NSDI) for several reasons…

  1.) The document should state that there are no experts on facilitating data sharing between government entities within the context of the NSDI in the forward. The reader should be cautioned to read the document critically. Otherwise they may mistakenly be given the impression that NSGIC is the authority in this area when there’s not enough accumulated knowledge for there to be an authority on data sharing and the NSDI. The coordinating council should take the responsibility of becoming the data sharing expert in their state(s).

  2.) For NSGIC the Fifty States Initiative is more of an inventory of which states actually have a plan, not a guiding document for state coordinating councils. State coordinating councils however may perceive it as a guiding document. My belief is that doing so will result in the failure of their SSDI in most cases. In Indiana 85 out of 92 counties have agreed to provide framework data to the SSDI. The coordinating council was only able to accomplish this after discarding the guidelines.

  3.) The document doesn’t encourage the geospatial community to learn how their state and federal laws facilitate and/or complicate data sharing. State coordinating councils must be aware of state and federal public records laws from the beginning as these should affect their strategies and priorities. Also, state laws will affect who maintains what data in which jurisdictions or agencies. Unless councils are aware of this they won’t know who to invite as stakeholders and may fail to invite critical representatives to their board. This should be addressed in section ’2.2 Where are we now?’ of the guidelines. Similarly, the document doesn’t encourage coordinating councils to establish legislative committees to keep track of their states legislative processes, proposed bills and new laws so they can stay informed (and feed that information on up to NSGIC as needed).

  4.) The document doesn’t stress how vital intelligence gathering is to coordinating councils. Keeping track of state legislation is one vital intelligence stream that ‘all’ councils must tap into but there are others. The initial activities of newly formed coordinating councils should focus on intelligence gathering, not planning. Without knowledge of their states laws, politics and dominate operating pathologies of government entities (among other things) councils can’t formulate effective plans and make informed decisions. When a coordinating council does get around to formalizing a plan how they will continue to gather intelligence should be integrated into it. This is necessary for ‘all’ councils to be effective.

  5.) The focus on the ‘GIS Champion’ needs some elaboration in the document. While it’s necessary to have a politician/executive decision-maker involved in the legislative process, focusing too much on the ‘GIS Champion’ can be self defeating. Having a ‘champion’ implies the coordinating council is helpless and needs someone else to deal with politics. This may be true when dealing with legislative issues but it’s not in most other cases. By making the ‘champion’ part of its guiding criteria NSGIC is fostering a culture of failure. GIS professionals on coordinating councils must learn to deal with state and local politics. They can’t always rely on a ‘champion’ to do their dirty work.

  6.) The implementation guidelines (section 5) focus too much on data and not enough on people. Most GIS folks deal with data and technology. This is necessary of course but we can probably muster the expertise to deal with data management and infrastructure related to SSDI. Where the SSDI process begins to break down is when coordinating councils (mostly made up of GIS professionals) deal with people. Managing an SSDI invariably comes down to managing people and relationships between government entities. Councils struggle with this and need guidance and education in basic intermediary and leadership skills. About the strongest leaders we can muster are project managers. A coordinating council isn’t a collection of projects; it’s a collection of people.

  7.) Getting local and state government contributing to the SSDI takes consistent face to face ‘dialog’ with key executives and politicians in every jurisdiction. It’s time consuming and often they aren’t cooperative but only because they have genuine concerns. Instead of focusing on local ‘buy-in’ coordinating councils should focus more on 'listening' to state and local officials. Find out what their concerns are regarding data sharing, let them know the council will work on addressing them and then the council should focus on addressing their concerns. Return to officials later and update them on the progress that’s been made and where the council has encountered obstacles. Ask for their input and invite them to join the SSDI/NSDI again. If they still say no then thank them for their time and continue to work on addressing their concerns. Rinse and repeat. Eventually (and it may be years down the road) they’ll say yes. There will be a few exceptions but so what, most will come on board. There’s no quick and easy way to do this and councils have to do the work or it won’t happen. This needs spelled out in the guidelines or coordinating councils are going to do what’s easiest, (mass emails, surveys, tweets, leaflets, letters and postcards which are all largely worthless until relationships are established) not what’s effective which is dialog with officials in their seat of government or agency office.

  8.) The guidelines fail to mention that the planning documents of coordinating councils should detail how the state coordinating body will file grievances against the FGDC, the General Services Agency and NSGIC when they fail to hold up their end of the NSDI.

  In Indiana we’ve successfully harvested framework data from over 80 of our 92 counties (and 85 have agreed to share framework data). The local framework data we harvest has been available for integration into the NSDI for over a year now. It still hasn’t been integrated into the National Map however and it’s my understanding the USGS is revamping geodata.gov so while the exclusion of our framework data from the NSDI is frustrating for Indiana, it’s understandable, at least in the context of the USGS restructuring. However, our State Geographic Information Officer filled out the necessary paperwork to put Indiana’s spatial data on Data.gov early in 2010. Why isn’t it available? This is just a hyperlink tied to an image of Indiana on http://www.data.gov/statedatasites so it’s not a technical issue which implies we’re being excluded either because of red tape or politics.

  There are approximately 6,400,000 Hoosiers taxpayers that aren’t benefiting from the economic development and public safety benefits of having our SSDI integrated into the NSDI. There’s no valid reason why there isn’t a hyperlink to our spatial data on data.gov. There’s a growing awareness in Indiana that to get our state integrated into the NSDI we may have to cram the Indiana Map down the federal throat. The guidelines don't detail that coordinating councils need a plan in place to 'force' their SSDI into the NSDI once they have their SSDI developed.

  « less full details »

  1 comment for Idea: The 50 States Initiative guidelines need scrapped and rewritten

  Submitted by John Milburn 2 years ago

• I agree

  9 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Common Data, Services and Applications »

  Data and Services

  Everyone has a standard and a method but some are better than others. Far too often companies capitalize simply on the lack of communication and leadership between the different levels of government. It has been proven over and over again that the only people who can ensure that the base data is accurate are the people that are directly responsible for the maintenance of the geospatial assets. Engineers for transportation ...more »

  Everyone has a standard and a method but some are better than others. Far too often companies capitalize simply on the lack of communication and leadership between the different levels of government. It has been proven over and over again that the only people who can ensure that the base data is accurate are the people that are directly responsible for the maintenance of the geospatial assets. Engineers for transportation infrastructure and Auditors for the parcel data are excellent examples of datasets that are tracked and utilized in local government but lack of coordination needed to stitch them together in a cohesive framework except for the geographic location bounded by the administrating authority. For this effort to be successful the individuals, department and agencies need to follow the framework set forth by this new Geospatial Platform. It is not the private sectors who are the experts in the data being maintained by our government. It is the person that is directly involved with the maintenance of the object in question that knows the intimate details of what everyone else wants to know.

  There are several great examples where state government has been able to put forth a framework to transcend the different levels of government in order to provide everyone with the most correct data and valuable services. These datasets are available for everyone and are used by several private and open source data and software offerings. (Sorry these are all from Ohio. I know there are several other shining examples from other states as well.)

  Ohio Statewide Imagery Program (OSIP)

  http://ogrip.oit.ohio.gov/ProjectsInitiatives/StatewideImagery.aspx

  The Ohio Statewide Imagery Program (OSIP) is a partnership between State, Local and Federal government agencies to develop high-resolution imagery and elevation data for the State of Ohio to benefit Geographic Information System users at all levels of government. Accurate imagery and elevation data serve as the backbone for the development of additional data sets that are currently maintained and accessed by government decision makers and the public.

  Along with OGRIP's other statewide programs, OSIP provides a common framework to support disaster preparedness, emergency response and critical infrastructure management. OGRIP’s coordination role in these efforts has resulted in significant cost savings and cost avoidance between federal, state and local government efforts.

  Ohio Location Based Referencing System (LBRS)

  http://ogrip.oit.ohio.gov/ProjectsInitiatives/LBRS.aspx

  The Location Based Response System (LBRS) is an initiative of the Ohio Geographically Referenced Information Program (OGRIP). The LBRS establishes partnerships between State and County government for the creation of spatially accurate street centerlines with address ranges and field verified site-specific address locations.

  Funding to support the development of LBRS compliant systems is available to counties through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that establishes roles and responsibilities for program participation. Participating counties provide project management and QA/QC on road names, addresses, etc. to develop data that is compatible with the state's legacy roadway inventory.

  The Ohio Department of Transportation is the LBRS Program Sponsor, providing technical guidance, support, and QA/QC services. The program is being administered by OGRIP, the state's coordinating body for Geographic Information System (GIS) activities.

  Through the collaborative efforts of State and Local government the LBRS program is producing highly accurate field verified data that is current, complete, consistent, and accessible. LBRS data is maintained as an Ohio asset by local resources and is provided to the state as part of a coordinated long-term effort by OGRIP to reduce redundant data collection by developing data that meets the needs of several levels of government.

  The LBRS supports a multi-jurisdictional approach to protecting the health, safety and welfare of the state’s constituents.

  Ohio Department Of Transportation (ODOT) Virtual Reference Station (VRS)

  http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/ProdMgt/Aerial/Pages/VRSRTK.aspx

  VRS (Virtual Reference Station) is a system composed of hardware and software designed to facilitate real-time GPS/GNSS positioning based on a set of reference stations. ODOT utilizes its CORS (Continuously Operating Reference Station) network to perform the role of the reference stations. The VRS system relies on Trimble’s RTKNet software which is the operational component that generates a modeled solution. One primary benefit of VRS is that you don’t need a separate GPS base station and someone to guard it in order to perform RTK positioning across the state. Using VRS, the CORS network acts essentially as a continuous reference station within the entire network. This allows RTK (Real Time Kinematic) positioning using a single (properly configured) rover in the field.

  These initiatives provide accurate data and services to all levels of government, public and private in a framework that insures data availability and interoperability. This allows the private sector to capitalize with value added products and services.

  It is my suggestion to follow examples like these on a national level, eliminating the need for who, what, when, where and how accurate questions which have to be asked for every village, city, county, regional, state, public and private data owners and service providers. Also, concentrate on the data that is currently being maintained by the local administrators and eliminate duplication of efforts by requiring the integration of the framework requirements into their business processes. And last but not least, make the data and services available in an open source standard that does not give preference to any particular geospatial vendor to insure interoperability.

  « less full details »

  1 comment for Idea: Data and Services

  Submitted by Fred Judson, GISP 2 years ago

• I agree

  14 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Shared Infrastructure »

  Connect to Data.gov and GIS Inventory platforms

  There are a number of successes out there that should be collaborative with the Geospatial Platform and it should connect and utilize resources such as those cataloged by Data.gov and the GIS Inventory (gisinventory.net).

  Add your comment for Idea: Connect to Data.gov and GIS Inventory platforms

  Submitted by Mike Vanhook 2 years ago

• I agree

  0 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Common Data, Services and Applications »

  Implement a low-level access architecture

  Our lab in California deals with quite a bit of data, using modern equipment, linux and solaris, open standards and a mix of proprietary and open-source software. When describing this initiative to one of our best guys, he said "those are the interfaces I ignore from the states - a bunch point and click GUI to restricted data sets." A low-level data architecture can fully express security, and, well executed, can be ...more »

  Our lab in California deals with quite a bit of data, using modern equipment, linux and solaris, open standards and a mix of proprietary and open-source software. When describing this initiative to one of our best guys, he said "those are the interfaces I ignore from the states - a bunch point and click GUI to restricted data sets."

  A low-level data architecture can fully express security, and, well executed, can be the basis upon which end-user GUIs are built. Think of fast, accurate transfer of data directly using low level tools. Exercise good search and discovery, librarianship and hosting, and you will get a popular and usable basis from which to build.

  « less full details »

  Add your comment for Idea: Implement a low-level access architecture

  Submitted by Brian Hamlin 2 years ago

• I agree

  -2 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Common Data, Services and Applications »

  Don't reinvent the wheel with a Federal twist

  Investigate ways to incorporate publicly-generated core datasets currently being created via Google Earth and other applications when feasible. Enhancing and leveraging existing systems and methodologies appears several times in the roadmap, but existing public/private datasets are never specifically mentioned. The roadmap should recognize that non-governmental data and systems currently exist, are rapidly evolving, and ...more »

  Investigate ways to incorporate publicly-generated core datasets currently being created via Google Earth and other applications when feasible. Enhancing and leveraging existing systems and methodologies appears several times in the roadmap, but existing public/private datasets are never specifically mentioned. The roadmap should recognize that non-governmental data and systems currently exist, are rapidly evolving, and can be potentially leveraged in a tiered stewardship model for development of common foundation data.

  « less full details »

  1 comment for Idea: Don't reinvent the wheel with a Federal twist

  Submitted by Christopher Markuson 2 years ago

• I agree

  15 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Other Ideas »

  Inventory Capability

  The current metadata models are tied too closely to documentation of individual datasets. The geospatial platform should look for a simple solution to inventory the capability and performance of authoritative data and services. Use case: A user needs to geocode addresses in Montana. What is the best resource to use (data or service; address point, centerline, parcel, hybrid), where can it be found, and what performance ...more »

  The current metadata models are tied too closely to documentation of individual datasets.

  The geospatial platform should look for a simple solution to inventory the capability and performance of authoritative data and services.

  Use case:

  A user needs to geocode addresses in Montana. What is the best resource to use (data or service; address point, centerline, parcel, hybrid), where can it be found, and what performance is expected.

  « less full details »

  1 comment for Idea: Inventory Capability

  Submitted by Bert Granberg 2 years ago

• I agree

  23 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Common Data, Services and Applications »

  Utilize existing & grow new capability vertically for best ROI

  State, tribal, and local government have many mature, effective geospatial initiatives. Without engaging and incorporating the work done at these levels, the geospatial plaform will likely miss out on significant opportunities for cost savings and collaborative-based, multiplicative benefits across the enterprise of American government. The geospatial platform should take advantage of this capability where possible and ...more »

  State, tribal, and local government have many mature, effective geospatial initiatives. Without engaging and incorporating the work done at these levels, the geospatial plaform will likely miss out on significant opportunities for cost savings and collaborative-based, multiplicative benefits across the enterprise of American government.

  The geospatial platform should take advantage of this capability where possible and invest in:

  - inventorying capability

  - setting achievable, simple data and service standards

  - incentivizing participation with funding directly linked to performance

  - work with Governor's to identify a single eligible entity to direct state-level projects that support the geospatial platform

  - focus ROI analysis on mid range time frames

  « less full details »

  1 comment for Idea: Utilize existing & grow new capability vertically for best ROI

  Submitted by Bert Granberg 2 years ago

• I agree

  4 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Common Data, Services and Applications »

  Consider usability

  A big reason geospatial technologies didn't enter the popular consciousness before Google and Bing is that they weren't easily used by laypeople. Now that has all changed - but we are still putting together web mapping sites that are difficult to use: too much information and too many tools. Why should someone have to know how to use an "Identify" tool, for example? See Peter Batty's talks on neogeography and usability, ...more »

  A big reason geospatial technologies didn't enter the popular consciousness before Google and Bing is that they weren't easily used by laypeople. Now that has all changed - but we are still putting together web mapping sites that are difficult to use: too much information and too many tools. Why should someone have to know how to use an "Identify" tool, for example? See Peter Batty's talks on neogeography and usability, and take his advice to heart.

  If you make it useful, people will come, and they will contribute. It can't be solely the domain of "GIS professionals" - there aren't enough of us to get this stuff done by ourselves.

  But look at Wikipedia and Open Street Map. If we make it useful and usable, the general public will contribute their expertise and our geospatial information will be constantly updated.

  « less full details »

  Add your comment for Idea: Consider usability

  Submitted by Mike Dolbow 2 years ago

• I agree

  2 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Governance »

  Federal Wide Standards

  When you have a platform such as this, how will it be ensured that all of the uploaded data will meet the same quality standards, for example:

  - Accuracy

  - Precision

  - Metadata (need automated tool)

  - Attributes

  - Naming Conventions

  For an example of an option is adapting the "Spatial Data Standards for Facilities, Infrastructure and Environment (SDSFIE)"

  Add your comment for Idea: Federal Wide Standards

  Submitted by Peter Tutko 2 years ago

• I agree

  28 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Governance »

  Implement a Stakeholder Governance Structure to compliment NGAC

  An outstanding model is the Digital Coast Partnership. This program is exemplary in its stakeholder participation and governance. It contracts with six national non-profit organizations (American Planning Association, Association of State Flood Plain Managers, Coastal States Organization, National Association of Counties, Nature Conservancy and NSGIC) to work on common concerns and to provide stakeholder input to guide ...more »

  An outstanding model is the Digital Coast Partnership. This program is exemplary in its stakeholder participation and governance. It contracts with six national non-profit organizations (American Planning Association, Association of State Flood Plain Managers, Coastal States Organization, National Association of Counties, Nature Conservancy and NSGIC) to work on common concerns and to provide stakeholder input to guide its development. Small contracts allow the organizations to defer their costs for participating and increase their level of performance. In addition, NOAA assigns a staff member to each organization to assist them and ensure that contract deliverables are completed in a timely and rigorous manner. The program emphasizes and uses this input for strategic and business planning to determine real business needs and appropriate solutions.

  « less full details »

  Add your comment for Idea: Implement a Stakeholder Governance Structure to compliment NGAC

  Submitted by William Burgess 2 years ago

• I agree

  26 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Other Ideas »

  Don’t Start What You Can’t Finish

  The apathy of the geospatial community to the Geospatial Platform is evident by the lack of responses to this site. There have been too many experiments, pilot projects, failed standards and good but unfunded ideas that have peaked the interest of the geospatial community, but only resulted in this increasing level of apathy. If this effort fails, it is very likely that the community will simply not engage in future ...more »

  The apathy of the geospatial community to the Geospatial Platform is evident by the lack of responses to this site. There have been too many experiments, pilot projects, failed standards and good but unfunded ideas that have peaked the interest of the geospatial community, but only resulted in this increasing level of apathy. If this effort fails, it is very likely that the community will simply not engage in future Federal efforts, and there will never be a National Spatial Data Infrastructure even if the Federal government succeeds in building its own spatial data infrastructure.

  « less full details »

  4 comments for Idea: Don’t Start What You Can’t Finish

  Submitted by William Burgess 2 years ago

• I agree

  20 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Common Data, Services and Applications »

  Adopt a Multi-resolution Data Model & System Architecture

  It is time for all levels of government to identify and adopt a common data model and transfer standard that can meet their needs. Government efforts are typically too slow to adapt to the rapid changes in the geospatial community. The private sector is much more adept and they have developed workable solutions (e.g. the Esri Community Basemap) that should be emulated in open standards by the Federal government with ...more »

  It is time for all levels of government to identify and adopt a common data model and transfer standard that can meet their needs. Government efforts are typically too slow to adapt to the rapid changes in the geospatial community. The private sector is much more adept and they have developed workable solutions (e.g. the Esri Community Basemap) that should be emulated in open standards by the Federal government with the cooperation of the private sector.

  « less full details »

  2 comments for Idea: Adopt a Multi-resolution Data Model & System Architecture

  Submitted by William Burgess 2 years ago

• I agree

  30 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Governance »

  Identify a Neutral Agency to be the Managing Partner

  While each of the Federal agency members of the FGDC has certain operational programs, none are entrusted with managing an operational National Spatial Data Infrastructure, and the FGDC was not set up as an operational unit. It is time to get a fresh face involved in the effort to build the NSDI. They need to be empowered and funded to take swift action. They also need to identify a workable governance model for the ...more »

  While each of the Federal agency members of the FGDC has certain operational programs, none are entrusted with managing an operational National Spatial Data Infrastructure, and the FGDC was not set up as an operational unit. It is time to get a fresh face involved in the effort to build the NSDI. They need to be empowered and funded to take swift action. They also need to identify a workable governance model for the Geospatial Platform that includes all stakeholders.

  « less full details »

  Add your comment for Idea: Identify a Neutral Agency to be the Managing Partner

  Submitted by William Burgess 2 years ago

• I agree

  28 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Common Data, Services and Applications »

  Identify Funding Sources to Support Proposed Activities

  Related governance efforts, strategic and business planning, and system and applications development all have a price tag and must be funded for the Platform to be successful. Based on the proposed Strategic and Business Plan process, the top priorities should be compared to available funding so that the Geospatial Platform starts ‘small’ with one or two applications that are useful to all levels of government. This ...more »

  Related governance efforts, strategic and business planning, and system and applications development all have a price tag and must be funded for the Platform to be successful. Based on the proposed Strategic and Business Plan process, the top priorities should be compared to available funding so that the Geospatial Platform starts ‘small’ with one or two applications that are useful to all levels of government. This will build credibility with the Stakeholders and User Community that is currently absent with regard to Federal efforts to build the NSDI. Additionally, a single national data program with widespread application like the NAIP program should be fully funded and the buy-up options should be expanded to better meet state, tribal and local needs. Starting very small and focusing on projects with a high potential for success will gain support from at least part of the geospatial community.

  « less full details »

  4 comments for Idea: Identify Funding Sources to Support Proposed Activities

  Submitted by William Burgess 2 years ago

• I agree

  21 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Other Ideas »

  Implement Strategic & Business Planning with Stakeholders

  NSGIC believes that the Roadmap document is too vague and not built on sound planning principles. Use the FGDC’s own guidelines developed for the Fifty States Initiative which are available at http://www.fgdc.gov/policyandplanning/revbpsp. Part of the planning process should identify the business requirements and drivers that affect local, state, tribal and Federal agencies, so that common needs can take the highest ...more »

  NSGIC believes that the Roadmap document is too vague and not built on sound planning principles. Use the FGDC’s own guidelines developed for the Fifty States Initiative which are available at http://www.fgdc.gov/policyandplanning/revbpsp. Part of the planning process should identify the business requirements and drivers that affect local, state, tribal and Federal agencies, so that common needs can take the highest priority. The planning process should also identify programs that have in fact resulted in 1) successful sharing of data or technologies, 2) efficiencies in developing geospatial programs, or 3) a standard national data set through a local to state to federal flow of data. Following development of a strategic plan, the identified success factors can be used as planks of a nationwide platform to build a national spatial data infrastructure in an incremental fashion.

  This planning effort must include the stakeholder community if the Federal government wants buy-in. It is not enough just to ask for comments on the Roadmap document. Specific details on each of the proposed activities must be available for review and concurrence by the entire geospatial community.

  « less full details »

  2 comments for Idea: Implement Strategic & Business Planning with Stakeholders

  Submitted by William Burgess 2 years ago

• I agree

  36 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Common Data, Services and Applications »

  Specify Open Standards

  The Roadmap for the Geospatial Platform states it “will be established as a service-oriented architecture based upon common, secure, interoperable and scalable open-standards based technologies.” The Roadmap also says that through the FGDC, standards that shall be evaluated for adoption by the Federal Government include: Geospatial data publication standards from the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC), the International ...more »

  The Roadmap for the Geospatial Platform states it “will be established as a service-oriented architecture based upon common, secure, interoperable and scalable open-standards based technologies.” The Roadmap also says that through the FGDC, standards that shall be evaluated for adoption by the Federal Government include: Geospatial data publication standards from the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC), the International Organization of Standardization (ISO), the International Committee for Information Technology Standards (INCITS) L1 committee, and the FGDC including but not limited to the Web Services (features, map, processing, coverage, etc.).

  This is a laudable objective and will provide increased transparency and collaboration capability for the Geospatial Platform. However, the Government should consider specifying which standards are to be implemented on a “sooner rather than later” basis. Advance guidance to the US technology community will help it better understand where potential investment, development and implementation may be needed. In addition, guidance on open-standards based technologies should clearly state that client applications and ingestion technology, as well as services and data, must implement the specified open-standards to participate in the geospatial platform. This will avoid interoperability problems, defacto stovepipes and lack of usability.

  « less full details »

  3 comments for Idea: Specify Open Standards

  Submitted by Jeff Harrison 2 years ago

• I agree

  5 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Common Data, Services and Applications »

  Remote Sensing

  Remote Sensing systems are key to understanding what and where events are happening on the landscape as shown by recent disasters such as the Gulf Oil Spill or flooding in the midwest. Our remote sensing needs seem to be more driven by the sensor of convenience rather than the need to answer the problems we are trying to solve. With recent flooding, daily optical and radar imagery were needed ot provide a current ...more »

  Remote Sensing systems are key to understanding what and where events are happening on the landscape as shown by recent disasters such as the Gulf Oil Spill or flooding in the midwest.

  Our remote sensing needs seem to be more driven by the sensor of convenience rather than the need to answer the problems we are trying to solve. With recent flooding, daily optical and radar imagery were needed ot provide a current state of where the flood extent was and where it was moving as well as to provide damage assessment. Thus a need for near real-time acquisition and delivery systems. Yet as we have observed for a number of years, there still remains gap where little or no imagery was acquired and delivered.

  Currently the geo-platform as well as the lack of a truely comprehensive remote sensing policy for the country and the funding mechanisms is hindering our efforts to address our 'comprehensive' remote sensing needs. This ultimataly impacts negatively on our country's infrastructure.

  « less full details »

  Add your comment for Idea: Remote Sensing

  Submitted by brian huberty 2 years ago

• I agree

  4 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Common Data, Services and Applications »

  Assess & Catalog common agency Business Processes

  A key question is how will agencies use the Platform? Can it be utilized within their Business Process? For example, DOI is now working on D.I.E.T. as means of consolidating data and technologies. Does this relate to the Geospatial Platform in any manner?

  Add your comment for Idea: Assess & Catalog common agency Business Processes

  Submitted by Leonard Gore 2 years ago

• I agree

  4 votes

  I disagree
  This idea is active.
  Common Data, Services and Applications »

  Integrate discussion into the actual platform

  You already have the actual platform site in place (www.geoplatform.gov). I think all ideas and discussion should be integrated within that site, as opposed to located at this different separate site (Ideascale). Why not use idea/discussion software designed to work within your actual site? As it is, you need to jump around from report, to geoplatform.gov, to geoplatform.ideascale.com. I think you could put everything ...more »

  You already have the actual platform site in place (www.geoplatform.gov). I think all ideas and discussion should be integrated within that site, as opposed to located at this different separate site (Ideascale). Why not use idea/discussion software designed to work within your actual site? As it is, you need to jump around from report, to geoplatform.gov, to geoplatform.ideascale.com. I think you could put everything at Geoplatform.gov using the right tools (there are lots of secure government approved options), and you could make it so visitors can comment directly, in situ, on your road map, geo tools, or whatever you plan to develop at that site. We could better help inform the evolution of the site that way. You may get more ideas that way, everything would be in one place, and you could effectively track the evolution of your concept from start to success to sustainable platform.

  « less full details »

  Add your comment for Idea: Integrate discussion into the actual platform

  Submitted by R Ziegler 2 years ago

Displaying 1 - 25 of 28 Ideas

• 1
• 2
• Next »