MAPPING ROSENBERG’S UTILITIES

Transcript

1. MAPPING ROSENBERG’S UTILITIES --Lessons Learned in Project Design & Data Collection-- Prepared by Rosenberg GIS
2. Rosenberg in the 2000s • Rosenberg is booming. • Long-time (20-30yr) utility staff retiring • 2008 Massive Sewer Rehab began • New Pro-GIS department head
3. Way back in 2014… • Fall 2014 – City hires 2nd GIS person • Position obtained with support from Utilities, Public Works, Capital Projects Depts. • Launch of City-Wide mapping project: • Water Distribution System • Sanitary Sewer System • Storm Sewer / Drainage System
4. First things First • Nov 2014 – Jan 2015 • Assessed Data • Held Stakeholder Meetings • Developed Data Model
5. Data Assessment • Reviewed our existing data • GIS layers existed, but… • Looked at other Cities • Looked at ESRI Local Government Model
6. Water Layers Source: ? Issues: • No connectivity • Missing newest areas • No Attributes! • Poor locational accuracy Assessment: Garbage
7. Sanitary Layers Source: 2006 Study Advantages: • Original survey input in GIS from the start • Fairly recent • General layout ~80% accurate Issues: • Missing newest stuff • Localized inaccuracy and “lost” features Assessment: Our Best existing layer.
8. Storm Layers Source: CAD file(s)from 1990s Issues: • No match inlet to lines • Missing new areas • No Attributes! Assessment: Not much better than water layers
9. In reality field crews were using this old paper map Last updated….March 1989!
10. Stake Holder Meetings • Conducted 3 separate meetings – one for each system • Meetings included: • GIS Staff • City Engineer (contractor) • Head of Public Services Division • Relevant Department Head – Utilities, Public Works
11. Stake Holder Meetings • Discussed: • Schema (though not in technical terms) • Domains (though not in technical terms) • Demonstrated Identify and asked… “when you click on… what do you want to know about the thing” [ex. water main]
12. (New) Data Model • Modified ESRI Local Government Model • Dropped a field or two • Added a few fields
13. “Mapping Phase” • Prepped Existing Data (for transfer) • Transferred exiting data to new schema • 1st Stage Cleanup • Correct Geometry • Populate Attributes • 2nd Stage Cleanup (Topology) • 3rd Stage (Geometric Network) • Maintenance & Refinement… into eternity
14. The Process (Stage 1) • Separated the City into Project Areas • Geographically coherent… such as neighborhoods • Compile paper Documents • Engineering Plans • Old Maps • Field Verification with GPS • Utility staff review final product
15. Data Collection – Paper Records Old Plans were: • Sorted • Scanned • Georeferenced • Glorified Tracing… Plans accounted for the vast bulk of our information.
16. Data Collection – Field Verification In the field: • GPS (1 day a week) • Sticking heads in manholes • Crew field sketches • Google streetview (in a pinch) GPS, at approx. 1050 man-hours still only accounts for ~16% of data
17. Results • 2 ½ Years to complete all 3 systems • 257 mi Water Mains • 213 mi Sanitary Sewer Mains • 160 mi Storm Sewer Mains • 32,000+ Point Features – Valves, Manholes, Inlets, etc… • Field Crew Buy-In when less than half done
18. Results Cont’d • 678 Sets of Eng. Plans • 11 City-Wide System Maps (historical) • 32 Field-Sketches • And Counting…
19. Lessons Learned & Take Aways • Lesson Learned. Provided stakeholders with detail at the get-go. • Lesson Learned. GPS & field verification is extremely time consuming. • Lesson Learned. Not all GPS is equal. Know your actual accuracy. • Lesson Learned. Use of higher-level software functionality (ie domains, topology, and attribute assistant) is vital to minimizing human error. • Take away. Surprising acceptance by field crews of “GIS Map” • Lesson Learned. Know your subject, and compare sources like a researcher. • Take away. Explain the purpose of data you are recording to staff recording it (example, valve pictures)
20. City of Rosenberg GIS Presenter: Cory Vardaman – GIS Specialist Email: cvardaman@rosenbergtx.gov Community Development 2220 4th St Rosenberg TX, 77471