...
Another possibility is for EAS to adopt a muli-point geometry for the base address.
Another other ideas?
Mike
...
Wynne
| Code Block |
|---|
From: Wynne, Mike [mailto:mike.wynne@sfgov.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 4:58 PM To: Paul Rose Cc: Chinn, Alton Subject: APO data...or mainly just the 'A' Hi Paul, hope things are going well with you. I’ve started working with Paul McCullough (at our Dept of Technology). Paul manages the City’s Enterprise Addressing System (EAS). He has worked closely with the Dept of Building Inspections to create a live synching of addresses between EAS and DBIs permitting system. I am now working with Paul to get something similar in place for the Accela-GIS address data. DBI’s current system allows some address related tasks that I am sure we can’t replicate within the Accela software, but I just wanted to confirm this before speaking with DBI. Incidentally, this may not be a problem, I just want to be clear when we speak to them. In their current system each address record includes a latitude/longitude coordinate and a link to a list of associated parcels. When they search for an address it will return the address, the lat/long coordinate and also all of the associated parcels. There are over 3,000 addresses in the City’s address data where the address is linked to multiple, disparate parcels (parcels which do not all lie under the lat/long point – e.g. a row of adjacent parcels with a single address, or even and address linked to multiple parcels scattered over a couple of blocks). It seems to me that in Accela-GIS, for each property, we can EITHER store the point geometry (based on the lat/long) OR the combined geometries of the associated parcels. I believe that it is these geometries that will define what data is returned to the Accela Automation user after they have searched for an address (the parcels, owners, zoning, environmental data, etc). The issue is that if we go for a point geometry I see no way of returning any parcels that are not immediately below the point. Whereas if we use the geometries of the associated parcels I see no way of having addresses that lie outside any parcel (e.g. an address located in the street – an address with no associated parcel). Can you confirm if this is correct? Thanks, Mike |
...
| Code Block |
|---|
Mike,
I passed your questions/comments
on to Accela Engineering and received an initial response.
Our Standard XAPO for Accela GIS
will not be able to handle cases where an address point doesn’t intersect the
associated parcel geometry. For the additional logic needed to be able to
evaluate data and find/select parcels or address points that do not overlay
each other, a custom XAPO adapter would need to be developed.
If we end up going down that
road, additional analysis would be required and GIS data examples would need to
be provided so that an estimate could be done for the custom XAPO adapter.
If using our standard XAPO
adapter for AGIS, the end user would be presented with a list of address points
and or parcels and owners that intersect the selected object and the user would
have to select what other components of APO they want to pass back to Accela
Automation.
What Accela Automation stores
for GIS objects is normally the Parcel’s GIS unique ID and then the information
for Parcels, Addresses and Owners is stored as transactional data to the new
record. However, any GIS feature ID can be associated to an Accela Record, it
just is normally the Parcel ID.
Paul H. Rose
Senior Consultant
|
Paul McCullough
| Code Block |
|---|
Mike,
I have requested a meeting with Hema...
Can we use a multipoint geometry? |
Mike Wynne
| Code Block |
|---|
Yes, we can use multipoint. I would have thought either multipoint or multipolygon were definitely the way to go. Realistically, Planning’s needs for addressing are much simpler than DBI’s so either would work for us in Planning. The planners work almost exclusively with parcel numbers rather than addresses. Everything else being equal I would always prefer multipolygon but I know Alton prefers multipoint. I think we should go with whichever works best for DBI. Thanks, mike |