Municipal Data Standards

1
Municipal Data Standards

• Nigel Roberts
• Manager of Client Services (GIS)
• Region of Waterloo

2
Data Standards of the 1980s and early 1990s

• The Provincial and Federal Government defined
  the initial Geospatial Data Standards ie OBM,
  NTDB, AMF, SLRN, RIMS, SIMS, WIMS, MBADES, ...
• Why was this The Geomatics industry was young,
  with very few vendors and those that existed were
  highly specialized companies.
• Government dictated standards by providing
  dollars to adopt these standards ie
  RIMS/SIMS/WIMS, OBM 12,000 with the Program
  funding based upon population base

3
Data Standards of the late1990s and today

• Whose defining todays municipal standards
  vendors
• The government appears to be no longer in the
  standards business, they do not see any direct
  financial benefit in the era of cost cutting
• Today the standards must be associated with end
  results ie collecting asset data to support
  maintenance management and work orders

4
Organizations Involved with Standards
5
Vendors Involved with Standards
6
Various Standards at Work in Municipalities

• Engineering Design and Construction
• Service Delivery Water, Garbage Collection,
• Hardware Standards Municipalities have a
  standard PC desktop rollout
• Software Standards Email, Word Processing, ...

7
What Municipalities Dont Understand

• Municipalities understand standardizing email,
  office products, etc.
• They do not understand the need to standardize
  geospatial information
• Information requirements stay the same even
  though the technology using this information
  changes rapidly.

8
Without Clear Standards.
Municipalities end up managing data
Not their Assets
9
Data Standards of Old

• RIMS
• SIMS
• WIMS
• OBM 12,000 Mapping

• Tied to funding
• The province stopped funding roads in 1996
• The province stopped cost sharing digital mapping
  in 199???

10
What has happen to Roads Data?

• Since 1996 municipalities have been left to their
  own to collect and maintain information about
  their roads assets.
• Many municipalities stopped collecting and
  maintaining their roads information. Their roads
  deteriorated and their lifecycle has been
  reduced.
• Others have migrated their data to other systems
  (Hansen, MIDS, ITX, )
• Last summer the OGRA surveyed municipalities on
  their roads data

11
Why municipalities need this information

• Enables them to rehabilitate roads intelligently
  to increase the roads life before complete
  reconstruction is required
• Monitor road conditions
• Budget preparation
• Accountable to their clients

12
Why are standards not working - Part I

• No financial incentives for municipalities to
  adopt information / data standards
• There is no one coordinating body for geospatial
  data standards
• Software / Application requirements are defining
  data standards

13
Why are standards not working - Part II

• Data standards do not directly resolve municipal
  needs I.e. Hansen provides a standard schema for
  data storage and collection of assets, but it is
  the add ons that are the incentive for
  municipalities (work orders, maintenance
  management, relationships between assets, GIS
  link, reporting, )
• Easier data conversion down plays need for
  standards

14
Opportunities for Standards

• OPENGIS Consortium (multi vendor participation)
• Digital Plans of Subdivision
• MIDS Municipal Infrastructure Data Standard
• Used by a number of municipalities and supported
  by the Tri-Committee (OGRA, MEA, APWA)
• CAD Standards
• Used by a number of municipalities and supported
  by the Tri-Committee (OGRA, MEA, APWA)
• RISWG Planning Data Standards
• LIO (Land Information Ontario), MNR