View
217
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Idaho Roads Framework Project
IDAHO ROADS FRAMEWORK PROJECT
Summary PresentationJune, 2010
Consultant PM:
Peter Croswell, PresidentCroswell-Schulte IT Consultants
Frankfort, KY(502) 848-8827
pcroswell@croswell-schulte.com
Idaho Roads Framework Project
Meeting Agenda
• Discuss project background
• Review project activities and recommendations
• Discuss ideas for implementation and roads Framework stewardship
Idaho Roads Framework Project
Project Objectives• Prepare a road transportation data model and data dictionary
• Provide recommendations on the development of the statewide road centerline database
• Define and work to achieve consensus on data stewardship roles and data maintenance procedures
• Provide recommendations on the implementation and use of a Linear Reference Model (LRM)
Idaho Roads Framework Project
Key Project Staff
• Bruce Godfrey, Principal Investigator, Univ. of Idaho Library
• Gail Ewart, GIO, Idaho Geospatial Office
• Frank Roberts, GIS Manager, Coeur D’Alene Tribe
• Dave Christianson, Transportation Technical Working Group Chair, Kootenai County GIS
• Scott Van Hoff, USGS Geospatial Liaison
• Peter Croswell, Consultant Project Manager, Croswell-Schulte IT Consultants
Idaho Roads Framework Project
Main Steps in the Project
• Situation Assessment
• Needs Survey
• Evaluation of statewide road data management programs in other states
• Preparation of draft recommendations report in January
• Review meetings in February
• Three additional draft report preparation and comment stages
• Completion of final report__________________________________________________
See results of Situation Assessment and Needs Survey at:
http://insideidaho.org/geodata/FrameworkPilot/transportation/2009_FGDC_CAP_grant/ situationAssessment.xls
http://insideidaho.org/geodata/FrameworkPilot/transportation/2009_FGDC_CAP_grant/needsSurvey.pdf
Idaho Roads Framework Project
Participating Organizations (respondents to needs survey and/or review and comment on draft versions of
recommendations report)
Idaho Geospatial Office Idaho Transportation Department Local Highway Technical Highway
Assistance Council (LHTAC) Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security Integrated Road Centerline Project Idaho Department of Lands Idaho E911 ECC Idaho Dept. Parks and Recreation Idaho Comm. Planning Assoc. Ada County Bannock Trans Planning Org. Bonner County Bonneville County
Kootenai County Fremont County Nez Perce County Madison County - City of Rexburg Owyhee County City of Nampa Coeur D’Alene Tribe Nez Perce Tribe U.S. Forest Service U.S. Bureau of Land Management U.S. Bureau of Reclamation ESRI GIS Quality Des. and Consulting, Inc.
Idaho Roads Framework Project
Current Road Centerline Database Development and Maintenance Programs in Idaho
• Idaho Transportation Department GIS program
• Local Highway Technical Assistance Council
• Idaho Department of Lands
• Integrated state road centerline project (INSIDE Idaho)
• Federal agencies (USFS, BLM) road centerline data capture and maintenance on Federal lands
• GIS programs in County and City governments
• US Census Bureau-TIGER data updates
• Commercial data suppliers (Navteq, Teleatlas)
Idaho Roads Framework Project
Road Data Needs Survey
1. Road Type priority
2. Positional Accuracy
3. Road centerline depiction and segmentation
4. Handling of “special road configurations (highway ramps, cul-de-sacs, traffic circles, “free ride” lanes, boat docks)
5. Road-related features
6. Road centerline attributes
Road Data Needs Survey
Idaho Roads Framework Project
• Evaluated programs in 7 states (AR, OH, MT, ND, TN, WA, WV)
Key “Best Practices”:
• Define business need and intended applications
• Identify clear state agency lead
• Active involvement of the state’s transportation agency
• Document data format and content standards
• Involve state and local agencies with missions in: a) transportation asset management, b) transportation planning, c) public safety
• Clarify procedures, “rules”, and timing for data update
• Maintain sound metadata
Road Centerline Data Programs in other States
Idaho Roads Framework Project
Components of Road Centerline Data Model
Types of roads for inclusion
Geometry rules: breakpoints, special road configurations, cardinality
Sources, accuracy requirements, and capture/maintenance guidelines
Attribute data content
Data dictionary
Metadata
Idaho Roads Framework Project
Recommendations-Types of Roads
• Public roads maintained by government entities (Federal, State, Local)
- Public highways (all FHWA functional classes: Interstates, US and State routes, county highways)
- Local roads and streets
- Roads on state and federal land (may have restricted access)
• Private roads that include:
- Roads maintained by gov’t entities but not open for public access
- Roads not open for public access maintained by private companies or land owners on private land or on public land with private easement granted
- Roads inside private developments (e.g., private roads inside apartment complexities, industrial parks, trailer courts, camp grounds, office parks, etc.)
- long driveways
Idaho Roads Framework Project
Review Recommendations-Road Segment Break Points
• At-grade road intersections (bridge or overpass points not included).
• County boundaries (Source Stewards may apply segment breaks at additional boundaries: Zip code zones, ESZ boundaries).
• Point where primary road name or route number changes.
• Points at which there is a change between a divided road (two centerlines) and an undivided road (one centerline).
• Well-defined points between intersections on long road sections between intersections (optional breaking which Source Stewards may apply).
Idaho Roads Framework Project
Review Recommendations-Divided Roads
Depict roads with 2 separate centerlines when:
Lanes are divided with a median, barrier, or marked gore area in the center, dividing the lanes of opposite traffic flow and restricting turns between the divided lanes.
Idaho Roads Framework Project
Review Recommendations-Digitizing Direction and Cardinality
Centerlines should be digitized in the direction of established cardinality for roads in which cardinality applies (Interstates, US routes, state, and county highways). W to E, S to N
Note: Some roads might have a cardinality that does not adhere to this standard. For roads with no formal cardinality assigned (e.g., municipal streets, rural roads), the digitizing direction should correspond to the low to high address progression
Idaho Roads Framework Project
Recommendations-Special Road Configurations
Ramps: General rule is to plot a tangent of the ramp’s centerline from the point at which the edge of the ramp first joins the connecting road to the connecting road centerline.
Cul-de-sacs: no physical island--terminate the centerline at the center of the cul-de-sac. For cul-de-sacs with a physical island, draw the centerline around the islandto a point in front of the last lot on the cul-de-sac.
Traffic Circles: Includes circles and other geometric shapes (e.g., square, rectangle, ellipse). The centerline of that shape should have a unique name and ID. If it has a formal name, this should be assigned. If there is no formal name, the authority for update should assign a name (e.g., name of major street or highway entering the circle or shape with designation of “circle” or “square”). Centerline segments should terminate on the circle’s centerline and define individual centerline segments of the circle.
Idaho Roads Framework Project
Recommendations-Special Road Configurations
“Free ride” lanes: One-way lanes branching from a main road before the next intersection which enables smooth flow of traffic for vehicles taking a right hand turn onto the next intersecting road. Centerline depiction of the free-ride lane will follow the general rule described for ramps.
U-Turn lanes: Road segments on divided, limited access highways that connect the two divided lanes of traffic and which are reserved for emergency use. This special road type is optional for inclusion in the Road Centerline Framework dataset. If they are included, they will be depicted as one centerline segment intersecting at the centerlines of each of the main lanes of traffic.
Marinas/Boat Docks: No requirement to include centerlines for these cases—the decision is left to the government jurisdiction with authority over these areas. In cases where they are included, centerlines should be captured along the longitudinal center of fixed or floating documents. Centerline segments should be named and address ranges may be assigned.
Idaho Roads Framework Project
Recommendations-Accuracy and Sources
• Use methodologies and sources that achieve the highest possible horizontal positional accuracy. Metadata should accompany all data to identify sources and accuracy levels.
• Goal for minimum accuracy level of 10-feet* but higher accuracy levels are desired.
• Sources for road centerline may include: a) medium or high-resolution (1-meter pixel or better) orthoimagery with centerlines captured through a heads-up digitizing, b) large-scale georeferenced subdivision maps or construction drawings, or c) field-based capture using GPS technology
*National Standard for Spatial Data Accuracy (FGDC standard)
Idaho Roads Framework Project
Recommendations-Attributes• Minimum Attribute Set (M): A “bare bones” set of attributes that
is considered essential for compilation and ongoing update of the Roads Framework.
• Core Attributes (C): Important for many GIS applications. Data stewards are strongly encouraged to capture these attributes in addition to the minimum (M) attribute set.
• Extended Attributes (E): Provide a richer data content than the core (C) attributes of use to a wide range of user groups. These attributes are needed to support a more extensive set of GIS applications.
• Attributes Not Included (N): Not formally a part of the Road Centerline Framework. It is recognized that these attributes (and others not identified in this project) do have importance for specific users and applications.
Recommendations-Attributes
Centerline Attribute Nu
mb
er o
f S
tate
s
Cen
terl
ine
Dat
abas
es
Usi
ng
Att
rib
ute
Ave
rag
e Id
aho
Pri
ori
ty
Sco
re (
from
nee
ds
Ass
essm
ent)
Co
mb
ined
Sco
re
Fra
mew
ork
Att
rib
ute
?*
Comment 1 0 1 E
Measure Method 1 0 1 N
Use Status 1 0 1 N
Road Label 2 0 2 N
Road Width 2 0 2 N
Cardinal (Y/N) 1 2.3 3.3 E
Left Side Odd (Y/N) 1 2.3 3.3 N
3D Length 1 3.1 4.1 N
Flip Geometry Flag 1 3.1 4.1 N
Reverse Direction (Y/N) 1 3.1 4.1 N
Left Postal ID 1 3.2 4.2 N
Right Postal ID 1 3.2 4.2 N
Left Community 2 2.3 4.3 N
Right Community 2 2.3 4.3 N
Divided Road (Y or N) 2 2.4 4.4 C
Alternate Segment ID 4 1.6 5.6 C
LRM ID 3 2.8 5.8 N
Speed Limit 5 0.6 5.6 E
Left Emer. Service Zone 4 3 7 E
Right Emer. Service Zone 4 3 7 E
Direction Traveled 4 3.2 7.2 C
Post Direction 1 4.3 5.3 N
Number of Lanes 3 3.8 6.8 E
Maintenance Status 2 6.1 8.1 N
Left County 6 2 8 C
Right County 6 2 8 C
Jurisdiction of Road
Use Restriction
Alternate Route #s
Map Length
Beginning Log Point
Ending Log Point
Alternate Street Names
Left City
Right City
Primary Street Type
Surface Type Code
Road Classification
Edit or Update Date
Source Information
Left From Address
Left To Address
Primary Street Prefix
Primary Street Suffix
Right From Address
Right To Address
GIS Data Steward
Route or Local Road #
Segment ID (primary key)
Primary Street Name
Comment
Measure Method
Use Status
Road Label
Road Width
Cardinal (Y/N)
Left Side Odd (Y/N)
3D Length
Flip Geometry Flag
Reverse Direction (Y/N)
Left Postal ID
Right Postal ID
Left Community
Right Community
Divided Road (Y or N)
Alternate Segment ID
LRM ID
Speed Limit
Left Emer. Service Zone
Right Emer. Service Zone
Direction Traveled
Post Direction
Number of Lanes
Maintenance Status
Left County
Right County
Jurisdiction of Road 2 6.6 8.6 M
Use Restriction 3 5.6 8.6 E
Alternate Route #s 7 2.8 9.8 C
Map Length 4 3.9 7.9 E
Beginning Log Point 5 4.7 9.7 E
Ending Log Point 5 4.7 9.7 E
Alternate Street Names 6 3.8 9.8 C
Left City 6 3 9 C
Right City 6 3 9 C
Primary Street Type 6 5.2 11.2 C
Surface Type Code 4 6.6 10.6 C
Road Classification 4 7 11 C
Edit or Update Date 6 5.9 11.9 C
Left State 6 6 12 C
Right State 6 6 12 C
Source Information 7 6 13 C
Left From Address 7 5.2 12.2 C
Left To Address 7 5.2 12.2 C
Primary Street Prefix 7 5.2 12.2 C
Primary Street Suffix 7 5.2 12.2 C
Right From Address 7 5.2 12.2 C
Right To Address 7 5.2 12.2 C
GIS Data Steward 5 7.4 12.4 C
Route or Local Road # 8 5.8 13.8 M
Segment ID (primary key) 8 6.2 14.2 M
Primary Street Name 7 7.3 14.3 M
Left Zip Code 8 8 16 E
Right Zip Code 8 8 16 E
Centerline Attribute Nu
mb
er
of
Sta
tes
Cen
terl
ine D
ata
bases
Usin
g A
ttri
bu
te
Avera
ge Id
ah
o P
rio
rity
Sco
re (f
rom
needs
Assessm
ent)
Co
mb
ined
Sco
re
Fra
mew
ork
Att
rib
ute
?*
Idaho Roads Framework Project
Road Centerline Data Stewardship
• For best success and sustainability, a State agency should assume the Framework stewardship role
• Effective stewardship will require participation and data contributions from multiple organizations—state, federal, local
• Compilation process should draw on ongoing work carried out as part of the Integrated Road Centerline project and data being collected and maintained by the ITD and LHTAC
• Need to provide for local government update in places with inadequate resources or expertise, including a formal approach, resources, and roles.
• For optimal integration and best usability, data contributions should eventually conform to the Framework standard (to be established per P5030).
• Metadata should be updated in tandem with updates to the centerline database
• A stewardship implementation is required and includes a charter, a plan, business rules and standard operating procedures developed collaboratively by the stewards.
Idaho Roads Framework Project
ISDI Stewardship Program Description
• Framework Stewardship: a sustainable approach, with clear roles and responsibilities for individuals or groups (data stewards), supporting the regular update of and access to the Framework element compliant with clear standards for data content, format, and quality.
• Key Stewardship Roles (see Stewardship practices document): IGO and Framework Coordinator: Stewardship coordination, standards development,
general support and coordination
IGC Executive Committee: Approval of Framework stewardship standards, policies, and plans
Transportation Technical Working Group (TTWG): Development of pilot projects and other technical explorations, an action plan for all Transportation elements, and anticipating and addressing vertical issues among Transportation elements.
Framework Steward: Facilitation, coordination, and support (central point of contact) for a specific Framework element. Organizes procedures/tools for data submittal (from Source Stewards) and processing; leads stewards in managing the data life cycle
Source Steward(s): Primary role for Framework data creation, update and integration into Framework
Idaho Roads Framework Project
Stewardship Documentation
• ISDI Framework Stewardship model and procedures (version 2 draft)
• Stewardship Charter: formal identification and documentation of stewardship accountability (see Stewardship charter template):
• Stewardship Plan: lays out the overall approach and more detail about who does what and when (see Stewardship Plan Outline)
• Business Rules
• Standard Operating Procedures—developed gradually
• Options for Framework Steward and Source Stewards
• Approach for establishing road framework data stewardship program
Idaho Roads Framework Project
Stewardship Discussion
• Options for Framework Steward and Source Stewards
• Approach for establishing Framework stewardship for Road Centerlines
Recommended