1 / 6

Analysis and Comparison of Parcel Polygon Attributes in MN: Current Standards and Future Vision

This study examines the attributes of parcel polygons as delivered to the RMLS of Minnesota over the past three years. The analysis focuses on identifying commonly used fields, current state of standards, and potential self-determined standards within 11 Minnesota counties. It includes an overview of the MN DNR Merged Parcel Geodatabase Schema and MetroGIS Parcel Standards. The research highlights the variances in field names and data types, and addresses the need for an Excel spreadsheet analysis tool. Future efforts will aim to refine data collection and improve standards.

gwyn
Télécharger la présentation

Analysis and Comparison of Parcel Polygon Attributes in MN: Current Standards and Future Vision

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. DCDC Parcel Attributes Analysis and comparison of as-delivered parcel polygon attributes

  2. Why? • Determine what fields are commonly in use currently • Where are we at now? • Is there a self-determined standard?

  3. What? • Parcel Polygon GIS files as delivered to RMLS of MN over the past 3 years.

  4. Where? • 11 MN counties so far • MN DNR Merged Parcel Geodatabase Schema • MetroGIS Parcel Standards • National Land Parcel Data – A Vision for the Future • NSDI FGDC Cadastral Subcommittee • More needed - distribute spreadsheet?

  5. How? • Excel Spreadsheet used as analysis tool.

  6. Caveats • Field names vary. (i.e. PREF_TYPE vs. prefix_ty vs. preftyp) • Field data types vary. • Date/time, y/n, String, numeric, etc. • Not done yet with analysis • Need to re-analyze earlier files. • Most interested in what data is being captured and stored. • Sort and compile stats when done.

More Related