case study: franklin county, ohio location based response system (lbrs) project presented by:...
TRANSCRIPT
Case Study: Franklin County, Ohio Location Based Response System
(LBRS) Project
Presented by:Transmap® Corporation
Ohio GIS Conference 2009
Agenda
•LBRS Overview
•Franklin County Project Overview
•Project Approach Benefits
•Project Approach Challenges
•Summary
LBRS Overview• Managed by the Ohio Geographically Referenced Program
(OGRIP)• 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.
• Provides compliancy specifications• Data maintained at the local level• Intended to reduce redundant data collection efforts
Source: http://ogrip.oit.ohio.gov/ServicesData/LBRS/tabid/87/Default.aspx
LBRS Overview• LBRS Uses/Users
• 9-1-1 Dispatch/ First Responders• County Auditors• County Commissioners and Engineers• Ohio Highway Patrol/MARCS• County Emergency Management Agencies• Ohio Department of Transportation• US Department of Homeland Security• US Census Bureau• Ohio Department of Natural Resources• Ohio Department of Agriculture• Ohio Utilities Protection Service
Source: http://ogrip.oit.ohio.gov/ServicesData/LBRS/tabid/87/Default.aspx
Franklin County Project Overview
• Two Phases• Phase 1 – Centerline Development (approx 5,600 miles)
• Phase 2 – Address Point Verification (approx 650,000 points)
• Utilize existing datasets to support the LBRS data development
• Integrate datasets from multiple municipalities• Validate existing information for use in the LBRS
compliant database• Conduct field verification activities as required
Franklin County Project Overview
• 2nd most populated County in Ohio• Contains mix of densely populated urban areas as
well as rural areas
Participating Partners / Stakeholders
• MORPC• Franklin County Engineer’s Office (FCEO)• Franklin County Auditor’s Office (FCAO)• ODOT• City of Columbus• City of Dublin• City of Westerville• City of Gahanna• Grove City • MEC• COTA
Existing Datasets
• Centerlines / Address Data• Franklin County
• City of Columbus
• City of Dublin
• City of Westerville
• City of Gahanna
• Grove City
• Combat
• ANI/ALI
Phase 1 - Street Centerlines
• Geometry• Alignment, Shape, Divides, Intersections, Coincident Geometries, Generalization and Densification
• County and Jurisdictional boundaries• Cul-De-Sacs
• Island – Loop around• No Island – End at Center
• Driveways, Parking Lots, Alleys• Metro Park Roads
Phase 1 - Street Centerlines
• Topology• Dangles, Pseudo Nodes, Overlaps, Self-Overlaps• All segment ends are “Snapped”• Verify all dangles are street ends• Nodes
• A node at every at-grade intersection.• A node where a road name changes.• A node at the intersection of jurisdictional boundaries• Overpass/Underpass should have no segment ends/starts
Phase 1 - Street Centerlines
• Other Centerline Geometry Checks• Coincident geometries• Offset Centerlines• Centerlines that do not accurately match curvatures of roadways• Centerline Orientation• Zero Length Geometry• Overpass/Underpass
Phase 1 - Street Centerlines
• Attributes• Street Name Fixes/Updates• NLFID and Begin/End Log Points (ODOT)
• SFRAIR00270**C, SFRAUS00023**C, SFRASR00315**C• Continuous, Leave/Reenter or Overlapping Inventory
• Left and Right Cities• Left and Right FIPS• Left and Right Address Ranges• Others
Phase 1 - Street Centerlines
• Log Point computation• Routes
• 14 Char NLFID – Network Link Feature ID
• IR, US, SR, CR, TR, RA – Preserves Route Numbers
• NR, MR, PR – 5 digit Route Number assigned
• Lower Left to Upper Right, County Boundary start at 0 Mile.
• Transportation Orientation maintained for street centerline
• Digitized Direction consistent with increasing Milepost Direction
Phase 2 - Address Points
• Assign unique Street Segment Identifier• Basis for building segment level address ranges• Identify points to be field verified
• Missing address point• Coincident and Duplicate address points• Missing or Incorrect address number• Missing or Incorrect address street name• Address point location• Address point with missing street centerline
Benefits of using existing data
• Data Collection / Data Development has already occurred
• No need to spend money recollecting good data
• Able to focus required field activities
• Overall project cost is lower than collecting all new data
Challenges of using existing data
• Different data sources covering the same area
• Varying data quality
• Data currency issues
• Different database schemas
• Different domain and pick list values
Summary
• Each County is different so the approach will depend on a variety of factors
• Total size of County
• Population Density
• Existing dataset accuracy and currency
• Participation from all stakeholder groups
• Existing datasets can be utilized as a foundation to meet LBRS specifications
• New field data collection/verification as needed
QUESTIONS?
Contact Info:
Craig Schorling, GISP
Business Development Manager
Todd Pulsifer
Operations Manager