Landscape of National GIS...

In considering the current state of geospatial data in the nation, it runs the gamut. A substantial amount of data is collected and developed at the local level. Some is collected and developed at the state and federal level, some by tribes, some by academia, some by non-profits, and some by private sector. Some of this data is generated on a regular basis, as part of an established program; some is purely on an ad-hoc basis. Some is mandated, such as some of the data collected on environmental data through the National Environmental Information Exchange Network, some is collected, purely incidental to other activities.

Some datasets exist on a national basis, some do not. And all throughout, there are myriad overlapping use cases, which may additionally place differing requirements on datasets. For example, in some cases, a roadway GIS dataset may be geared to roadway maintenance needs; in others, toward network and traffic analysis. In some cases, the requirements, dataset characteristics and attributes can converge and be accommodated in a single dataset. In others, they may not be able to converge, but the needed datasets can be developed by means of value-added attributes or joins. In some cases, derivative data is required. In many cases, there is tremendous need for consistency and authoritative datasets.

The landscape that quickly begins to emerge is one which is a patchwork, full of seams, overlaps, disjoints, gaps and disconnects- but- also one which holds much potential for leveraging disparate investments, and providing economies of scale, along with increasing richness of data, increased update frequency, increased accuracy and completeness.

How can these gaps and disjoints be bridged? Through a framework, forum and national dialogue, bringing together stakeholders at all levels – federal, state, local, tribal, academia, non-profit, and industry; through partnerships; through collaboration - organizations like NSGIC, like Federal and other agency GIS workgroups, like CUAHSI and many others. This is what holds a National Spatial Data Infrastructure together and brings success.  

The first step is in considering the concept.

Act Locally, Think Globally.

Stimulus and Infrastructure Planning

With considerable debate and controversy, HR 1, the Stimulus bill has passed in the House of Representatives and has moved on to the Senate for additional debate and deliberation.

Current Bill Status

The full HR 1 text and various summaries are posted below:

• The House Bill, HR 1
  
• Summary of Spending
  
• Summary of Tax Cuts
  
• Congressional Budget Office report, 1/26/09
  
• Summaries of the bill posted on the speaker’s Web site.
  
• Proposed Amendments
  

(note: these may change as HR 1 works its way through the Senate)

Additional Supporting Documentation:

• ASCE Report Card on US Infrastructure
  
• State-by-state Transporation Infrastructure breakdown
  
• New America Foundation Summary of Educational Needs
  
• Schools Spending Plan
  
• State-by-state breakdown of low-income programs by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities
  

There are also a few additional sites discussing the Stimulus, such as the GOP-driven http://readthestimulus.org/ which nonetheless provide useful resources.

Within the Stimulus bill, there are a number of investments proposed, e.g. transportation funding, mass transit, broadband infrastructure and much more.

Question is, how do we intend to properly assess, triage and plan how and where best, geographically, to make these investments to provide maximal benefit without spatial data on a national level? How can these investments be expended without an adequately informed decisionmaking process?

This need points toward NSDI, the National Map and the related pieces that serve it, and a core need for geospatial data and analysis, which should be an integral part of any of these planning and investment processes, as well as embedding geo-enabled technologies within the investments themselves.

Investment in infrastructure without also investing in the underlying planning process and supporting data and decisionmaking tools represents tremendous opportunity lost, in terms of making adequately informed decisions, leveraging efforts, and properly targeting infrastructure improvements to where they provide the greatest good to the American people as a whole.

National Spatial Data Infrastructure 2.0

Recently there has been a great deal of discussion about "NSDI 2.0" - and yet it seems there is much confusion about what it is or isn't - and what we should do, or whether we should bother discussing it at all.

History
To step backward in time, it primarily deals with National Spatial Data Infrastructure from a federal perspective, as enacted through the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-16.

This document was originally issued in 1990, followed by Presidential Executive Order 12906, and then subsequently updated in 2002 (which incorporated EO 12906).

OMB Circular A-16 (as revised 2002)

In its present form, the NSDI (if you were to consider it NSDI 1.0) consists of:

• Defined data themes (geodetic control, orthoimagery, elevation, transportation, hydrography, governmental units, and cadastral information)
  
• Metadata (FGDC Metadata Format)
  
• The National Spatial Data Clearinghouse (Geospatial One-Stop)
  
• Standards (developed only when no existing voluntary standards exist, in accordance with OMB Circular A-119)
  
• Partnerships
  

Within the NSDI, oversight is provided by the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC)

Additionally, A-16 pursues the following:

• Privacy and Security of raw and processed citizens' personal data and accuracy of statistical data
  
• Access to these data, subject to OMB Circular A-130
  
• Protection of proprietary interests to these data 
  
• Interoperability between various federal agencies' information systems within these data
  

The NSDI supports the advancement for a Global Spatial Data Infrastructure that coincides with National Security interests. Any Federal system that develops international data in accordance with these systems must follow international voluntary standards as outlined by Circular A-119.

The Current Situation

With the FGDC and OMB mandate, this prior effort more than anything, establishes a framework.  This framework, in turn, is something that individual agencies and data stewards can build to.  Similarly, the recent Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Geospatial Line of Business (GeoLoB) and other initiatives, such as the Federal CIO Council's Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) Geospatial Profile 1.1 provide guidance toward harmonizing investment, technology and architecture.  Further, the recently-formed National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC) has been formed under the Federal Advisory Committee Act to provide advice, from a community cross-section, to FGDC.

Here nonetheless remains the challenge of populating this framework.  Many diverse efforts are ongoing, which align with these efforts, such as Imagery For The Nation, such as EPA's Exchange Network, however some of these efforts still lack adequate resources for completion, may have issues with stovepipes, lack of interoperability, lack of access, and so on.

The drivers for completing this work are manifold - such as providing adequate tools for planning, to better allow informed decision-making for such things as roadways and transportation, for analysis of demographics toward broadband investments, for homeland security, for planning improvements to municipal sewers, for protecting natural and archaeological heritage and biodiversity, and so on.   As such, with discussion of massive stimulus and the H.R. 1 bill geared toward many of these things, it is imperative that decisions and investments be made in an informed fashion.

Currently multiple documents of relevance and proposals toward populating this framework and advancing the various initiatives are currently circulating within the GIS community:

• NGAC Transition Recommendations, October 16, 2008

• Additional NGAC Documentation, October 15-16, 2008

• A Proposal for National Economic Recovery, published by ESRI and Booz-Allen-Hamilton

• NSDI 2.0: Powering our National Economy, Renewing our Infrastructure, Protecting our Environment, published by a coalition of government and industry partners

• A Proposal for Reinvigorating the American Economy Through Investment in the US National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI), published by Autodesk, Microsoft, Oracle, Google and Intergraph
  

All of these speak to the need for populating the NSDI framework.  The questions and differences only remain in approaches.    Many elements are crucial to success, such as:

• Satisfying clear mandates, requirements and drivers for geospatial data
  
• Delivering data in an accessible, vendor-neutral, platform-agnostic and interoperable fashion
  
• Leveraging and dovetailing into existing initiatives and investments
  
• Partnerships:  Federal/State/Local/Tribal/Academia/NGO/Industry
  
• And many more...  These need to be considered carefully.

The hope is that the community can have an open, informed discussion of these elements and proposals, along with all of the key context, history and background.  And hopefully adequate open forums will become available for doing so.