Lower Adirondack GIS Users Group Meeting - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Mercy
lower adirondack gis users group meeting l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Lower Adirondack GIS Users Group Meeting PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Lower Adirondack GIS Users Group Meeting

play fullscreen
1 / 16
Download Presentation
Lower Adirondack GIS Users Group Meeting
174 Views
Download Presentation

Lower Adirondack GIS Users Group Meeting

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Lower Adirondack GIS Users Group Meeting Warren County Street Centerline Project December 1, 2004

  2. Background Warren County : ~ 1200 miles of public roads ~ 600 miles of private roads County completed in-house : ~ 450 miles geometry ~ 200 miles attribution Error checking of 1 town Summer 2004 – the Sheriff’s Department hired a consultant, (Applied GIS, Inc.) to complete the project

  3. Existing Road Data • NYS DOT roads • TIGER roads • NYS Accident Location Information System (ALIS) These data sources have inaccuracies in geometry and attribution (especially consistency with E-911 address ranges)

  4. Data Sources for Geometry Development • 2001 Digital Orthoimagery • Tax Parcel layer with RPS • Road Centerlines from ALIS • GPS field work

  5. GPS used to delineated roads that were not visible on the orthoimagery

  6. Geometry Methodology • Divided Roads: Line segments head’s up digitized following the road’s centerline (where visible) • Undivided and Dirt Roads: Line segments within the edge of the roadbed

  7. Geometry Methodology • Complex Features: • Cul-de-sacs • Multiple lane highways • Divided highways • Follow ALIS Project Rules

  8. Attribution Methodology • Based on Warren County’s Dispatch System • Primarily manual coding, referencing Sheriff Department Excel spreadsheets • 14 fields manually entered • Additional fields obtained from Sheriff Department Excel

  9. Attribution Methodology • Manual Attributes Coded:

  10. Attribution Methodology • Address ranges interpolated from Excel data fields • Cross reference with other sources: • Spreadsheets listing residents’ names and house numbers (available for ~ half the towns) • Real Property data (BUT! not consistently accurate for E-911 addresses)

  11. Error Checking • Type 1: Compare Sheriff Excel spreadsheet address ranges to other available sources • Error report of unresolved cases provided to Sheriff’s Department • Sheriff’s Department field checked, corrected data sent back to Applied GIS for update

  12. Error Checking • Type 2: Geocode in ArcGIS the County’s Voter Registration database for each town. • Errors identified as either: • Mistake in address ranges of data (correction by consultant) • Error in voter registration database

  13. Problem • County’s address ranges were developed independent of GIS, therefore address ranges may not be consistent with road length

  14. Thank You!