Slide 1

Report
Case Study:
Enabling Regional Interagency
Spatial Data Sharing using FME
Daniel Feinberg
Senior Business Analyst, Critigen
Agenda









Introductions
Background and drivers for the project
Collecting information
Application design
System architecture
Challenges
Benefits
Next steps
Future applications
Introductions
 Critigen
 Safe Software
 The Colorado North Central All-Hazards
Region
 Member Counties
Boulder
Broomfield
Gilpin
Clear Creek
Adams
Denver
Arapahoe
Jefferson
Douglas
Elbert
Project Background
 Emergency management planning focus
 Need for continuous region-wide dataset
 Coordination with member counties hard to
achieve
 Homeland Security grant for 2008-2011
Collecting Information
 10 counties, all with different needs, desires,
agendas, and data sharing policies
Collecting Information
 10 very different data schemas, from the very
simple to the very complex
PGDB
Coverages
Shapefiles
Collecting Information
 Everything decided by committee,
consensus difficult to reach
 Prototype application with 8 spatial
data layers








Roads
Parcel Owners
Parcels
Census Blocks
Municipalities
Lakes
Streams
Fire stations
Schools
Plus one non-spatial layer to
support one-to-many
relationships
Collecting Information
 NCR data schema developed to house
translated data sets
Feature classes,
attributes, and
domains need to be
mapped and
translated
Application Design
 ESRI ArcGIS Server web-based mapping
application
Application Design
 SQL Server 2008 ArcSDE database
 Password-protected web application
Data Upload
Custom created
web pages
assemble required
FME Server
request strings
Upload Page
Data Upload
 FME Server translation
 Based on 10 FME upload workspaces
Arapahoe County Upload
Data Upload
Arapahoe County Upload
Data Upload
Upload Schema Mapping
Data Upload
 Custom created web pages assemble required
FME Server request strings
Typical Upload Request
https://www.gis.ncrcolorado.org/SpatialDirect/tran
slationServlet?SSFunction=getUploadStatus&reqID=12015
361025840.7794552208857219
Data Download
Custom created
web pages
assemble required
FME Server request
strings
Download Page
Data Download
 FME Server translation
 Based on 11 FME download workspaces
Arapahoe County Download
Data Download
Parameters
Point & Buffer
Extents
County
Municipality
Data Download
 Download Area Options




By
By
By
By
Area – Drag a rectangle, define on map
Point and Buffer, define on map
Municipality – clip polygon
County – by County field in attribute table
 Schema Options
 10 different counties plus NCR master schema
 Coordinate System Options
 UTM, 4 different state plane, LL NAD83
 Layer Options

Select any and all available data layers
Data Download
 Custom created web pages assemble required
FME Server request strings
Typical Download Request
https://www.gis.ncrcolorado.org/SpatialDirect/translationS
ervlet?SSFunction=remoteFetch&format=Download_Arapa
hoe.fmw&fmeParams= --selectedThemes "" --boxMinX -boxMaxX --boxMinY --boxMaxY --queryType
POINTBUFFER --pointXcoordinate 493412.821 -pointYcoordinate 4406154.604 --countyName --cityName
--radius 53019 --destinationCoordSys UTM83-13
Workflow Overview
Upload
Download
System Architecture
 Two servers, one primary, one redundant
 Hosted at disparate county locations
 Douglas County – Primary
 Denver County - Redundant
 Automated replication between servers
 XLink ClusterReplica Pro replication software
 Automated failover between the servers
 DNS Made Easy
Challenges
Decision by committee
Lack of previous coordination between counties
Disparities in GIS sophistication
Need to better define and monitor uploading
schedules for the ten member counties
 Expanding scope of project to agencies outside of
emergency management focus has required:
 Review of data sharing agreements
 Modifications to accommodate disparate user
groups
 What to add next… who has what?




Benefits
 Unique planning tool with continuous region-wide
dataset
 FME allows quick updates to accommodate provider
schema changes
 FME supports easy expansion of system to include
different data inputs (non-spatial) and data schemas
 “Forced” dialog between counties promotes better
coordination
 Edge matching
 Data schema consolidation
 Serves as a model for inter-region and state wide
coordination
Next Steps
 Phase II wrapping up
 Added 10 additional data layers
 Additional user roles – data views
 Improved existing data layers
 Phase III starting up
 Facilitate counties working together to
edge match street centerlines
 Add more viewer functionality
 Geocoding service
 Advanced “one-click” spatial queries
Future Applications
 Other Colorado all-hazards regions
 DRCOG and other MPOs
 State of Colorado
Thank You!
QUESTIONS?
More information:
Daniel Feinberg: [email protected]
Frank Orr: [email protected]
Scott Kellar: [email protected]
Dominick Cisson: [email protected]
www.critigen.com

similar documents