Ada County SIG

Requester

Notification date: 27 May 2009
Agency Name: Ada County Assessor's Office
Contact Person: Dan Narsavage
Phone: (208) 287-7273
E-mail: dnarsavage@adaweb.net

Data set name: ROS (coverage points & annotation, and shapefile points)

Description of change request/notification: We'd like to cease delivery of the ROS coverage. Once the change takes effect, the ROS point shapefile with all of the same information will still be available (including all the fields involving annotation). Some field names may be changing, however - to reflect the change from coverage annotation to geodatabase annotation. I honestly haven't looked into that yet.

Purpose for the change: We are preparing to transition maintenance of this dataset from ArcInfo/coverage into ArcFlap/ArcSDE. Regularly re-creating the coverage as it exists now from a geodatabase would require additional custom code that we'd like to avoid writing and maintaining since it won't serve in-house needs.

Managing Agency

Agency Name: Ada County Assessor's Office
Contact Person: Dan Narsavage
Phone: (208) 287-7273
E-mail: dnarsavage@adaweb.net

Potential impact to end users: Anyone favoring the coverage over the shapefile presumably is doing so in order to use the annotation. The loss of this anno is the only impact I can foresee, but it could be significant. While we transition other layers into geodatabase and develop an alternative to the currently AML-driven production of the Adamaps tiffs, we will be producing a coverage that only contains annotation. If needs be, we can continue to deliver this coverage during the aforementioned transition. Once that's finished though, we will cease production of this coverage and will only be able to deliver the shapefile points and geodatabase annotation.

Feedback deadline: 12 June 2009

Feedback preference: Post a reply in this thread.

I see no issues at this time with the change to geodatabase.
Nathan

Sounds good to me, as long as we could still access the shapefile or GDB version. We won't need the anno.

Chuck

Boise City no longer uses the ROS coverage; however, we do use the shapefile to upload the data into our SDE GDB. Ending the delivery of the coverage is fine with us.

On the other hand, changes to the attributes in the shapefile could cause us problems. Could you give us some forewarning if changes will be made to the currently existing columns or column names in the shapefile? Thanks, Jimae

After some discussions with a couple people, I've developed a few more details. See attached zip file. It contains an example of the shapefile I'm proposing we export (containing only one point to fit under the file size limit for an attachment) as well as an Excel spreadsheet that acts as a field map between the old & new shapefiles as well as a (substandard but hopefully adequate for these purposes) data dictionary. The metadata alongside the shapefile comes from our GDB feature class and is only partially complete.

In short, the fields in the shapefile have been historically almost completely been exported from the fields in the anno that support the anno and have no real meaning for the ROSes themselves. The only exception is "MapSize," which we must keep. The TextString field (formerly TEXT) contains each ROS number as given by the Recorder's Office. Those two attributes are likely the only two that anyone really cares about.

Thanks,
Dan

Here's an updated ROS shapefile. Note the field name change and the removal of many extraneous fields (leaving only the "ROSNumber" field).

Anticipated implementation date (FINALLY!): January 13, 2010

This change has been completed!