Idaho
In Idaho, my office is responsible for the state lands spatial database. We began with county parcel geometry and added more specific owner info and other attributes. Then we asked each county if we could reconcile our records with theirs; most counties consented. We found and fixed nearly 70 errors. Thus, for statewide parcels, state lands are already in sync with the county geometries, but only some of them incorporated our more specific owner name into their databases. Many public land areas in county databases do not have parcel IDs to enable a join. We are farther from a solution for federal lands, as each fed agency may or may not have a well-developed land records unit, and most counties do not have the resources to elaborate on public land polygons.
New Jersey
In NJ we don't have quite that problem, but one similar. We have a regional authority that has partial jurisdiction over the towns in two of our counties. We're accomplishing that blending of information from different sources by tagging the records by jurisdiction, and when an update from one jurisdiction comes to us, we delete the old records of theirs and load the new ones. But ... this only works because we went through and edge-matched everything along all of the boundaries, and got everyone to agree to use that version for any subsequent maintenance. (Initially we were waiting for the regional authority to give their data to the counties, and collecting whole counties from the county government after they merged the changes. It didn't take us long to see that this wasn't going to work because the county staff were backlogged.)
Indiana
We don’t have much federal land in Indiana. We do have our share of state owned land. The geometry of state owned land and minimal attribution (think state parcel i.d.) are maintained at the county level. We have a group within state government that maintains much more attribution for state-owned land; the geometry comes from the counties. We are only including minimal attribution of the statewide data. In the case of parcels, we are publishing only the geometry plus the statewide parcel ID plus a local ID if one exists. We think this will be enough to facilitate a join with any number of other data sets owned by a user.
New Mexico
New Mexico’s status regarding a statewide parcel dataset is very similar to Idaho’s. Much of what you describe applies, almost verbatim, to New Mexico. Bottom line here is county assessors currently have little motivation or business need driving them to enhance their current workflows to include collecting and maintaining data on land other than the real property they appraise. Regarding state assessed lands/property, although assessors are evaluated by our Property Tax Division on their effectiveness in assigning PIN’s (UPC’s here) to these areas, this is not practiced consistently in all thirty-three counties.
Over the past few years we’ve been fortunate to have worked closely with the FGDC Subcommittee for Cadastral Data, specifically their Wildland Fire Project. Two of the more significant products of this partnership have been the development and publication of the New Mexico CadNSDI (standardized PLSS built from GCDB) and, with the parcels we’ve been able to collect from about two thirds of our counties, the ability to load data into the NSDI Core Parcel feature class in the CadNSDI. See attached screenshot. This is Bernalillo County (mostly Albuquerque) parcels loaded into the NM CadNSDI. You can see the parcel ID’d and selected and the attributes indicating “Owner Classification or Type” and “Full Owner Name.”
In the case of federal and state lands, the above story currently only works for counties that are populating those fields. Not true for most of our counties. The long-term goal is to help/encourage all of our counties to publish data (GIS parcels and attributes, together or separately with respective joining fields) that conforms to the attached draft standard and systematically load these into the Core Parcel feature class. The standard integrates recommendations from both our State’s parcel mapping manual and the CadNSDI.
Washington
The Department of Ecology took all the parcels data and by county they did a dissolve on the land use code (which for WA is incorporated in the parcels data). From there they added in the major ownership information (USFS, BLM, Parks etc). They hand entered in the land use information for the three counties that don’t have county parcels data. The result was a detailed statewide land use data set with major ownership in it.
No comments:
Post a Comment