MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
emergency message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency-comment] USNG-NAD83 - Implementing a Common Operational PictureforEM/ES Through Location Interoperability
Was going back through the various comments we have received to date,
and came across this one again. In much the same perspective as Art
relayed in the earlier parts of this thread, I am not finding any
"problems" or "suggestions" in this email thread as it would pertain to
issues with CAP. Seems more like a reflection and recount of
experience, but like Art, I am not a GIS expert either, so perhaps
there is something lying between the lines that I too am missing.
Unless someone else can absorb, digest, and interpret this, it appears
there is nothing else to comment on here.
Please let me know if otherwise - Allen
On Mar 8, 2004, at 4:17 PM, Art Botterell wrote:
> Mark, I'm forwarding your note herewith to the OASIS Emergency
> Management Technical Committee's public comments list, and also to the
> GIS subcommittee since I expect your suggestion will wind up there
> anyway.
>
> Thanks!
>
> - Art
>
>
> From: "Whitney, Mark" <Mark.Whitney@dhs.gov>
> To: "'Art Botterell'" <acb@incident.com>,
> "'rexb@starbourne.com'" <rexb@starbourne.com>
> Cc: Eliot_Christian <echristi@usgs.gov>,
> "'Jules McNeff'" <jmcneff@overlooksys.com>,
> "'Richard Hogan (E-mail)'" <rlhogan@usgs.gov>,
> "'Terry Mr Neri G'" <TerryNG@hqmc.usmc.mil>
> Subject: RE: USNG-NAD83 - Implementing a Common Operational
> PictureforEM/ES Through Location Interoperability
> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 15:12:05 -0500
> Status:
>
> Dear Art,
>
> I certainly understand the confusion as we are in a bit of an
> uncomfortable
> time of a transition and different agencies/entities will all have
> their
> two-cents worth and internal differences. Given USNG is a Federal
> standard
> and the recent memo from the Associate Director for Geography, USGS, I
> believe you can safely assume their position on basically replacing all
> lat/long references in the CAP spec with "USNG-NAD83/WGS84" (older
> GPSs use
> MGRS-NAD83/84). I have copied Richard Hogan at USGS and Tom Terry at
> Marines
> for your reference.
>
> While I was at FEMA-HQ I initiated some very substantial and early
> funding
> for OpenGIS but can't speak now for what they are attempting to do. I
> would
> say however that theirs is mostly a digital world of protocols,
> hand-shakes,
> header-files, translation/transformations on the fly... all fine and
> dandy..., but, especially for very large disasters this will simply not
> suffice: preparation/training/plans/voice commo/when the power is out
> and
> only piles of debris for hundreds of square miles... it will always be
> a
> digital/paper/voice enterprise that operates mostly in large scale
> mapping
> environments (no lat/long on most city street level maps).
>
> ESRI? Well I'm not sure what to tell you here except that if they had
> come
> down to Miami to implement GIS for Andrew (instead of DMS who did a
> wonderful job) the way they did for WTC, they would sure as heck be
> telling
> their customers with a certain sense of urgency to take advantage of
> their
> new Military Analyst tool, which ESRI kindly developed with one single
> request following 9/11, and shift their reference system and datum
> over to
> USNG (reference system being key but both important). Even with WTC,
> and
> ESRI did a marvelous job from what I can tell (as we did in Andrew only
> two/three weeks too late), still there were several grid systems in
> use by
> different WTC responders including the one used with hand-held GPS to
> mark
> locations where bodies/evidence were recovered: a proprietary grid
> reference
> system, which speaks for itself in terms of a National and easy to use
> public domain solution for a reference standard for all Emergency
> Management/Emergency Services/and disaster uses-users.
>
> (PS, NYC has a separate reference system in use by each of it's
> boroughs +
> the WTC had their own unique reference system for that site. This is
> common,
> Salt Lake City fire and police are (were?) each using a different
> reference
> system.)
>
> We here at USFA, and I certainly don't speak for USFA, have the task of
> bringing along the Nation's fire service (and EM?), a daunting task
> for the
> fire service alone since the vast majority of the 30,000 departments,
> like
> NYC and SLC, use their own unique and local reference system which most
> often will not work easily with GPS (see second paragraph USFA
> Interoperability Advisory a quote from US Fire Service Needs Assessment
> (USFA/NFPA Dec. 2002)). Only 1.6% use lat/long (3 versions x 1.6% = 5%
> total) though thankfully at least 1% already use MGRS. We are working
> with
> DOD on a proposal to pilot one FD each service between now and Jan '05
> when
> NFIRS changes over since they use NFIRS currently and their
> implementation
> plans/experiences can then can be shared with civ side o' the house.
> Hopefully not too much of a worry based upon the experience of the
> State of
> Nevada's Chief Cartographer as they implemented at the State and local
> level
> (attached).
>
> Very good to hear you witnessed Andrew in person since it probably
> changed
> you like everyone there. Can you imagine the challenges we have out
> front
> given the state of "mapping" preparedness we currently have at hand?
> Andrew
> was 2 Divisions +, I can easily imagine different human and natural
> caused
> incidents that "will" require many more. At least one in three
> responders
> will require a large-format paper map day one (not to even mention the
> public's need for spatial information/maps if required to evac in a
> hurry),
> with the same reference system, for just the basics of getting around
> not to
> mention the more fancy fang-dangled "GIS" products back at the DFO
> used for
> analysis that we spend so much time and attention on.... Until we get
> everyone rigged with the same or seamlessly interoperable digital units
> backed by standardized data content (all using the same reference
> system),
> if that ever happens (I doubt it), even then the demand for paper maps
> will
> still be great due to their own advantages in addition to other
> requirements
> for voice commo to simply describe location (with a given there will
> often
> not be street signs), paper plans....
>
> I truly can understand how at this juncture finding out about this
> standard
> could be a bit more than frustrating. In my humble opinion, we at FEMA
> are
> in a large way at fault for that deficiency due in large part to
> internal
> issues. In the big scheme though, it is actually early in the game and
> I'm
> glad I came across your emails.
>
> With very best regards,
>
> Mark A. Whitney
> Fire Programs Specialist
> National Fire Data Center
> United States Fire Administration
> Federal Emergency Management Agency
> Department of Homeland Security
> 16825 S. Seton Ave.
> Emmitsburg, MD 21727
> (301) 447-1836
> USNG: 18SUJ00539638
>
>
>