Transcript Welcome BMARC THE FUND Base Mapping Advisory Research

Welcome
BMARC Meeting
Base Mapping Advisory Research
Committee
THE FUND Headquarters
Friday, May 21, 2004
Next Meeting
th
16
Monday, August
10 a.m.
THE FUND Headquarters
Boundary Resolution
Subcommittee Page #1
• Mr. Norwood Gay – Dispute Panels
• Larger body of people to call on for individual
matters. Each individual panels would be 3
members.
• Real Estate Members, Surveyors
• Nine member larger panel, pick three for a
particular hearing
• Report results to larger panel for decision.
• Evidence rules need to be developed
• Next meeting after May 21 BMARC meeting.
Boundary Resolution
Subcommittee Page #2
• Other title insurers would be consulted.
• Purpose of subcommittee – advise Bill as to which
corner to use for map rectification.
• Dave G described layers of resolution
• 1. Reported survey layer – multiple corner mons.,
multiple geopositions
• 2. Resolved geoposition layer (single lat,long)
• 3. Resolved corner layer (single monument)
• 4. Rectified parcel base map (Bill’s work)
Boundary Resolution
Subcommittee Page #3
• Nick Campanile suggested using some DEP
known conflict areas as sample adjudication test
cases.
• New Direction for committee –
• (1) continue work as defined in the report.
• (2) The DEP sample is located in Indian River
County, and the subcommittee work on that case
will support the pilot.
Standards Subcommittee
Page #1
• Jessie Hummel reports for the Standards
Subcommittee
• Standards Subcommittee will define terms of
BMAC
• Software
• Formats for agencies
• Contracts and forms, scope
• Materials and inventories
• Reporting standards
• Personnel standards
Standards Subcommittee
Page #2
• Mapping standards, clean up, final form meets
MTS?
• We will have standards.
• Definitions would be first. Unless we define our
terms, we have problems communicating.
• New Committee work:
• (1) Continue with work outlined above
• (2) As the Indian River County layer definition
takes shape, this subcommittee should review it
and have input to develop it further as a statewide
standard.
Business Model Subcommittee
Page #1
• Steve Gordon reporting –
• Ted Madson discussed his request-for-funding
plan.
• Scope of Subcommittee needs to be defined –
suggest that the Subcommittee identify data
providers, data consumers, costs.
• Relying only on new subdivision plats will not
lead to critical mass for marketing purposes.
• Another and perhaps a better approach = incentive
plan for surveyors to give up their everyday
survey work for a certain amount of money.
Business Model Subcommittee
Page #2
• Dave G. suggested the concept of “mapping senior
rights” where the first locations submitted are
given first priority for use in map rectification.
This may be an incentive for submission.
• Norwood gave possible business plan – national
program in which all underwriters would submit
all their policies into a giant database. Each
individual user would pull down a previous policy,
that original underwriter would get a small royalty.
Business Model Subcommittee
Page #3
• A submitting surveyor could receive a
royalty each time a submitted survey was
“pulled down” and used.
• A second issue is that the issue should be
affiliated with the University and the
Geomatics program. A center would have a
Board of Directors consisting of a broad
group of stake holders.
Data Synchronization
Subcommittee – Page #1
• Bill Martin reporting – the question is how to have
the county’s base map under daily revision and to
also have the map being rectified off line – how to
keep them in sync.
• Alachua County – Bob Bates has two base maps
one internal that has new mapping, but not
“published” yet due to sensitivities., the second
map is the current published map.
Data Synchronization
Subcommittee – Page #2
• Indian River County – Bill overlaid several digital
subdivision plats with the parcel map. The base
map showed regions of agreement and areas of
disagreement. The CAD files were not in
georeferenced coordinates, but some plats had text
references to State Plane Coordinates.
• Only two or three counties are using Geodatabase.
The others are using shape files. Use cut and
paste for shape files.
Data Synchronization
Subcommittee – Page #3
• The Center would have an ArcIMS site to
distribute data that is being constantly
updated.
• Lenders are using the “owner’s affidavit”
instead of requiring new surveys. Hidden
easements are a problem.
Data Acquisition Subcommittee
Page #1
• Scott reporting – Dave N. gave his mapping data
to Bill M. The subcommittee has not addressed
bringing data into the system.
• Scott indicated his situation as a county mapper.
His mapping just must identify the parcel and
approximate acreage, but does not need to meet
survey location.
• This subcommittee needs to establish official
communication between the survey mapping
world and the DOR mapping effort.
Data Acquisition Subcommittee
Page #2
• Layer structure is a problem. The county surveyor
uses ACAD 12. Sends DXF imported into
ArcMap, but they will not import. There are still
many problems with data conversion. The
“Center” would solve this problem.
• We need to offer a superior mapping product at a
lower cost, then Property Appraisers will welcome
the product.
Indian River Pilot Project
Page #1
• Dave Gibson summarized the pilot project
• He identified the existing Participants
• Dave will attend the Indian River Chapter of
FSMS meeting Tuesday, Aug 25th. He will
organize the “Surveyor Group” participants.
• Suggestions were to include the City of Vero
Beach, Florida Power and Light, the FEC
Railroad, and the IRC County Engineers Office as
participants.
Indian River Pilot Project
Page #2
• The BMARC identified that the pilot
project should be about 6 months duration,
to be finished by the end of December 24th,
2004.
• There will be a interim report at the next
BMARC meeting in August, 2004.
Bill Martin’s Comments
• We need to aim for online surveyor integration
including checking.
• Need the base map to be within 3 ft. Online
surveyor integration will not work if the
integration requires 30 ft moves.
• CAD files are the only way to go. Integration
reduces costs by 65% of adding new parcels.
• “Center” is needed.
• 6 to 9 months to get parcel data into the system
• Internet submission by surveyors within 2 yrs.
The End