How do you spend your time?

Here is a series of 10 maps that shows how folks across our country spend their time, from how much they read each day to how long they spend ‘grooming’.  It’s pretty interesting!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/06/20/ten-maps-that-show-how-much-time-americans-spend-grooming-eating-thinking-and-praying/?wpisrc=nl_wnkpm

Mapping our Energy System

This is a great series of maps showing what our energy infrastructure looks like.

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/12/5803998/the-us-energy-system-in-11-maps

Northwest Group Acquired by Hexagon AB

On Wednesday, Hexagon AB announced that it had acquired Northwest Geomatics, Ltd. (aka Northwest Group) which is a longtime NSGIC Platinum Sponsor.  Tim Crago (Vice President, Northwest Group) briefed NSGIC’s leadership on the acquisition and reaffirmed his commitment to sponsoring NSGIC.  He also alluded to exciting new product offerings, resulting from the acquisition, that he hopes to announce at the NSGIC Annual Conference in Charleston, South Carolina.  Stay tuned…

Esri's Contribution to ConnectED

Daniel Edelson is vice president for education at the National Geographic Society and directs National Geographic’s Center for Geo-Education. He recently posted an interesting article on their Education Blog that describes the value of Esri’s commitment in support of President Obama’s ConnectED Initiative.  Esri will provide free access to ArcGIS Online to all elementary and secondary schools in the United States.  Follow this link to learn more about this initiative.  The Huffington Post published a related article titled “The New Space Race” by Thomas Fisher, Dean of the College of Design, at the University of Minnesota.  The Association of American Geographers also published an article in it’s newsletter about Esri’s donation to this important program.

Smithsonian Article on History of GIS

In case you haven’t seen this interesting article:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/unlikely-history-origins-modern-maps-180951617/?no-ist

Gerrymander, anyone?

This is a great article demonstrating the craziness of (some of) our Congressional election boundaries.  Who did their GIS, anyway?  What a nightmare!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/05/15/americas-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/?wpisrc=nl_wnkpm

Mother's Day data

Here’s a series of charts and maps in honor of Mother’s Day.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/05/09/11-maps-charts-and-graphs-for-mothers-day/?wpisrc=nl_wonk

The Economic Potential of Geospatial Data

While I’m preaching to the choir, this op-ed makes some good arguments to share with others.  I especially like the point at the end, that GIS is poised to generate the next transformation of data online.

http://www.nextgov.com/big-data/2014/03/op-ed-unlocking-economic-potential-geospatial-data/79894/

How healthy is your county?

Ah the power of maps!  Here is a series of 10 maps on a variety of health metrics.  I found it eye-opening for my neck of the woods.  How does yours measure?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/03/26/the-ten-maps-that-illustrate-the-healthiest-counties-in-america/

NSGIC Address Program Survey 2013

In October 2013, the NSGIC Address Working Group conducted a survey to describe the level of activity of states and territories with address location databases and programs that support them.  Address program points of contact had previously been identified via NSGIC state and territory liaisons.

The results of the survey were presented at the NSGIC 2013 Annual Conference in Kansas City.  In addition, state-specific slides were made available for comparisons in a deck and via the NSGIC State Information sub-site.  Responses were also made available for download in spreadsheet form for further analysis at will.

What was most remarkable was the level of response.  49 of 57 states and territories expressed whether they had programs for or plans to develop an address dataset for their jurisdiction.  19 of these admitted to no formal program, however at least half of these reported a high level of interest or activities in the planning or informal implementation stages.  And none of these responders selected “No Interest/No Demand” as a reason for not administering an addressing program.  Lack of personnel, funding, or coordination were instead listed as the primary reasons.

Of the 30 states and territories reporting a program, most reported representations of over 80% of their population or jurisdictions.  Their profiles of activity show that address data aggregation was the principle role of states and territories, although coordination, distribution, standardization, quality assurance, technical assistance and standards promulgation were also common roles.  Less than five states or territories indicated that they were address assigners.

911 Dispatch, Emergency Management, Broadband Mapping, and Enterprise Geocoding needs were the most common drivers among those states and territories reporting addressing programs, each with differing weights for both use and contributions.  Funding for these programs ,as reported by 17 of the 30 states administering address programs,  is predominantly supported via federal grants and telephone service charges.  The costs for start-up and maintenance reported varied widely.

Data collection from local jurisdictions is predominantly via lower technological means, specifically email, File Transfer Protocol (FTP) servers or other Managed File Transfers (MFT) services, or on physical discs, although collection via database and web service access may be growing.  Distribution after collection was primarily reported to be via address-matching (geocoding) services, FTP/MFT, web map services, and static data download websites.  Data is largely being stored in spatial relational databases.

For collection and re-distribution of address data, 40% of the respondents reported no formal agreements were necessary AND their data was made available to the public, while agreements to make data available to state and/or federal governments were still common for others.

The use of internal or State standards was most common.  The use of national address standards (FGDC, NENA, USPS) were significant but not predominantly used in quality assessments.  Rather general aspects of attribute and spatial accuracy and database normalization or integrity constraints were common among them.

The data for at least a quarter of those reporting addressing programs is field verified, and likely over half of the data contains “subaddresses” or additional location information most often indicating in which building and at which unit an address is located.  Many address datasets describe at what feature (building, driveway, parcel) the address point is being located.

For more information regarding the survey, please contact Russell Provost or Nathan Lowry. Those who are interested in this topic more broadly are invited to join the Address Committee by contacting Russell Provost.

Sincerely, Nathan Lowry

GIS Outreach Coordinator

P 303.764.7801 |  F 303.764.7764

601 East 18th Avenue, Suite 220, Desk D-23, Denver, CO 80203-1494

nathan.lowry@state.co.us  |  www.colorado.gov/oit

How am I doing?  Please contact my manager Jon Gottsegen (jon.gottsegen@state.co.us) for comments or questions.