1 / 19

Welcome

Welcome. BMARC Meeting Base Mapping Advisory Research Committee THE FUND Headquarters Friday, May 21, 2004. Next Meeting Monday, August 16 th 10 a.m. THE FUND Headquarters. Boundary Resolution Subcommittee Page #1. Mr. Norwood Gay – Dispute Panels

saad
Download Presentation

Welcome

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Welcome BMARC Meeting Base Mapping Advisory Research Committee THE FUND Headquarters Friday, May 21, 2004

  2. Next MeetingMonday, August 16th10 a.m.THE FUND Headquarters

  3. 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.

  4. 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)

  5. 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.

  6. Standards SubcommitteePage #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

  7. Standards SubcommitteePage #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.

  8. Business Model SubcommitteePage #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.

  9. Business Model SubcommitteePage #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.

  10. Business Model SubcommitteePage #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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. Data Acquisition SubcommitteePage #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.

  15. Data Acquisition SubcommitteePage #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.

  16. Indian River Pilot ProjectPage #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.

  17. Indian River Pilot ProjectPage #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.

  18. 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.

  19. The End

More Related