Definition - STA010.2 Section 5.2

Definition - STA010.2 Section 5.2

Brian Rosen – The original discussion – how do you get a map for a call that arrived to your center from out of area? No matter what happened, a caller can get help from someone who can effectively provide help. If a call can’t be handled by native PSAP, want to provide data to help the caller. One piece needed is a map to see where the caller is located. If out of area then their GIS system doesn’t have the data. So need to get the map for call out of area. As people discuss it, say, “look I have problems” – systems that have different data – CAD, three other systems, etc. If you have this ability to generate a map, then couldn’t you say there’s one source of data, one map, one source of maps, used by all systems?

Brooks – variety of systems that use the data. STA 010 talks about what it can do, but not standardized until version 3. If you find this interesting, please join. We would also love additional text contributions.

What can it do?

• Authoritative maps
• More information for “out of area” calls
• Help make efficient effective and useful
• Providing feature data

How is data used today in public safety?

• Can allow first responders to know where they’re going.

Marc – realities in GIS world today.

• 87% of calls are wireless
• Many homes via cable or VOIP calls
• 6billion SMS
• 88% of today’s calls are downgraded to analog voice to work with E9-1-1.

Today’s reality

• 9-1-1 knows my EXACT location (no)
• Call from ANY device (no)
• Works for voice, text, video, images (no)
• Special needs EASILY met (no)
• One big 9-1-1 center nationally (no)

What problems can we solve?

• Many people are more aware of these issues more than ever.
• Challenges will become easier, but there will be new challenges that come along as well
• We can provide better cartographic data as a reference everywhere.

What type of map data would people need?

Diana – question to be explored. There already are national map databases. Open Street Maps, ArcGIS Online, there are a number of nationwide mapping databases that provide decent information that can provide a map for out of area. Is that something that is being considered or explored here? Every call taker / map display must have three things (FAST, RELIABLE, ELEGANT DISPLAY – that is easy to understand). Is that something that is being considered?

Brooks – I think it’s a fine point, and we need to explore the cartographic nature needs to be understood. The use of authoritative vs non-authoritative, but “pretty good” – I think it’s a perfectly appropriate discussion to have, and a reasonable way to solve problem now.

Marc – Authoritative information and base layers – i.e., Law, Fire, EMS are needed. Those other sources don’t provide that.

Diana – when considering NG9-1-1, shouldn’t that already be coming from the ECRF?

Jason Horning – This is a functional element on the ESINET. As far as using external internet based systems, I’m not sure how we would do that. It would require exposing the ESINET to public internet.

Diana – two things that are going on – underlying call routing (PSAP and emergency responders using data). What is that map representation when I receive the call? I’m very passionate about content-rich map displays for call takers. The more information you can get with information that is visually read. So if you have a call from a national park, trails and markers are important. Same scenario with college campuses. At a national level, there are some national datasets – i.e., railroad crossings and mile markers that should be included where they’re relevant. Many time these datasets aren’t in nationally / global map services that are provided. I think nationally there’s not consistent authoritative data. For example from California, you can see things like building footprints and if you get local GIS data from 9-1-1 authority don’t have much data and content. You’ll go ahead and see a map display with local information and the call-takers and dispatchers are looking at google maps. If we’re talking about a map display, this will be relevant.

Marc – We get into legal issues by not having authoritative data.

Kim Paxton – i.e., look at google maps when looking at their data there’s a charge. However when look at what Marc’s saying there’s issue from a legal perspective.

Marc – I think we stick with serving up authoritative data from a PSAP. Are we talking about images or data behind the images?

Brian Rosen – I want a call handle out of area to be handled the same way you handle call data in-area. This is how do you get the authoritative data. Don’t have a completely different display and mechanism out of area.

Marc –You also don’t want to reinvent this across the country.

Dan Banks - If you have call taker looking at the maps in your PSAP–i.e., you’re now taking emergency or overflow calls that you’ve agreed to take, they’re looking at maps for an area they’re not familiar with. If those maps have the same style, look and feel can process the information fairly effectively. If they look completely different then it’s more of a challenge. The question that comes up. As Brian says, if the same information comes up – I think there’s merit to the approach.

Brooks – This goes back to cartographic style. Second point is an interesting one as well. Some agencies have 40-50 layers of data in their maps. Locations of specific landmarks, sites with known HazMAT, etc. If you have to provide backup services. If my map has 8 layers and yours has 50 then you come up with a challenge.

Rosen – There are solutions for that – that is why the proposal I made for how to do this was done. The map should gracefully handle that. The opposite is more of an issue. If you are used to something that isn’t there. Maybe you solve this with mandatory, optional and recommended layers for map display.

Brooks – could you explain this at a high level?

Rosen – Put a proposal in for how to do this. Suggestion which I think we’ll suggest with modification. Do a Web Feature Service (WFS) and give it a bounding box and it gives the features in the box. Control it by layer, by area. Create a database with the features; query it by location and the area. But you render them locally. However if you have layers you control that. That’s the idea.

Marc – that’s brilliant but the interface sucks. WFS sucks.

Diana – it needs to be fast and elegant – and WFS is not that.

(Unknown) Response to Brian – use the terms that the Map Database Service is complex and multifaceted. It contains technical and operational items to overcome. What is being proposed in my opinion is perhaps not necessary at this juncture and at worse could cause diversion of resources for some things that could be unworkable for the short term. With a MDS, the original concepts through STA-010, want to deliver a map display viewer. Then later a map database function. Some of that circled around SI and other things. In the recent iteration, would provide a map viewer service, but a map delivered to your PSAP that will be up-to-date, readable and cartographic. It implies a central database. However it would also provide the data itself. Another consideration – if doing MDS, you could use a national server, etc. what Diana mentioned, etc. But what I would support is that vendors could use commercially available solutions instead of a NENA advocated system. If NENA gets in the game, you are now competing with provider services. In the map display system for 20 years, this thing is so complex, but I believe it’s opening a can of worms. Is this one system or multiple systems? Consistency between the systems, support, etc.

Diana – one of the more difficult aspects is the coordination and consistency. Technology will be fairly simple but to coordinate and get. Availability, accuracy, sources are going to be the big issues.

Dan – this will likely need to be a distributed approach.

Marc – i.e., Katrina New Orleans. Need local authoritative data. Need to be able to display on the screen.

Dan – not going to an SI to pull the data. General idea is that you would make a query similar to LOST to discover a mapping service. This would be consuming services. It would be a standard service that everyone implements. The path is straightforward but the challenges in the data models don’t include all the information to produce nice cartography (can be solved). Not everyone has nice data (will need to be solved). Even if you take mapping off the table, you still need it for call routing. Need authoritative data for the streets.

Jason – all of NG is about provisioning data. Map service is one thing. But can we use the GIS data to provide it to vendors that are used? It also changes how we provision CAD or mapping systems. The GIS data is one thing – looking at the map service that is being provisioned. The idea that we use some other dataset to map calls. We want to use the same GIS data in the LIS to map things.

Sergio – Something else to keep in mind. Needs to be good looking. If I take you to EOC, FEMA, etc. There are parts of the GIS that have common symbology. What we’re trying to do is make them seamless. Would expect common symbology.

Brian – that specific thing gets into the issue of features or images pre-rendered. If you’re getting images that are pre-rendered then the issues are very important big-time.

Brooks – That also goes into Dan – it takes your symbology, but also it takes the features that are important to you.

Jason – one advantage of WFS/WMS is that you can use stylized renderers. That is on the client side to make it how you’d like. The client gets to decide.

Brooks - However for WMTS, those problems exist.

Sergio – that’s why talking about standardization not customization

Kim –While these mapping services are great, but if I’m a PSAP and maintain my data locally and those services are behind the firewall. Those will need to be discussed.

Brooks – I might have missed this, but another issue is that if I’m a GIS authority, what’s in it for me to give up my data?

Brian –it’s a generational issue. It’s going to be really tough to get the senior PSAP management to get comfortable to handle the call from another call center, but to let anyone else handle your calls. Yes that will be a hard problem. It’s not technical or operational.

Richard Kelly – Some states can’t legally provide service out of state.

Rosen – I’ve been working on this for a decade but want to be forceful so when Katrina happens again we can handle it.

Brooks – There will definitely be bridges we have to cross

Rosen – We will need to talk about what to do in those circumstances. Need to be optimistic. Want to look at what Jason is saying – one big dataset to maintain – an authoritative source… and everyone who needs the data will come to that source, so it’s authoritatively changed by those who have control over it. What you said was really important.

Jason – it’s real-time. Why wouldn’t I want to go grab the dataset every day and update the system? We’re building the workflows to provision the data. Getting the workflows is hard work.

Brooks – I think this is similar to early discussions about needing an LVF or a LIS. If we think about the end state it’s going to be tough to get there, let’s not shoot ourselves in the foot and stop innovation.

Unknown (ESRI) - There are a lot of really clear ideas. We need to ask;is there a map we can agree on or a few key pieces of intelligence to consider? Also need to consider the power you have as a body and demand that certain standards are open so you can add additional intelligence - whether it’s an online map or one that can be delivered. Look at what NENA and FCC and others are doing to give folks congressional authority to create a national map that can be pieced together.

????? - Question – where does standardization stop? Why can’t map hook to SI?

Michael - Other – Was under the impression that an SI was for provisioning not retrieving.

Dan – There is some data that cannot be represented as features and can only be represented as imagery. There’s nothing in the SI as imagery (i.e., aerial photography). As a consumer, I use imagery for personal purposes because there’s a lot of information that I get from a picture that can’t get from a map. Many times building footprints are just approximations from imagery in the first place. On the other hand, I get a concern (Brian’s not worried about it), it’s faster to serve up pre-rendered tiles and determine which ones are important to draw.

Brooks – Dan have a question – could limit the number of clients. Do you know if there’s an OGC other than map box for Vector Tiles.

Marc – Don’t know it yet. Also, good point that the SI is for provisioning. Good point Michael.

Michael – We want to be able to render images or get authoritative, but also get non-authoritative data from other sources. Might get imagery from post-tornado damage. For example – there may be uses we can’t envision right now. Want to get authoritative from authoritative source but other data from non-authoritative sources.

Dan – agree here – we map vendors definitely have our work cut out for us. Don’t think we should push it too hard too fast. Need to leave some room. Believe what Richard says that it will be expensive and difficult, that there’s some truth to that. Also believe Brian that it’s important.

Marc – Will talk about it again in January. If anyone is interested, please join the i3 workgroup. Great way to spend your Thursday mornings.

Brian Rosen – It’s important that people get in standards work. What workgroup chairs deal with is contributed text. If we were awash in contributions then maybe I could say, maybe we could make the map database priority 7. I’m not awash in contributions.

Brooks – can we use data sources today as we make transition? All of that comes into the realm of crafting text. It would be awesome to have you join.

What’s Next / Action Items:

• This will be discussed further in the i3 workgroup as version 3 of STA 010 is developed. If you find this interesting, please join the workgroup to provide input and text.
• This will be discussed further in Texas in January.
• Additional roadmap/discussion points will be needed to clarify short, medium and long-term goals as they have an impact on related work.
• Questions on what datasets and/or cartography would be needed at minimum for call processing from another PSAP.
• Data in the current GIS Data Model and what will be loaded to the SI – comparison to what else is needed for map display
• Longer term – interaction with CAD and other systems and availability of MDS for those applications.
• Continue discussion to discuss pros/cons with WFS and cartographic representation / use to support MDS. This may be about pros/cons with WFS compared to other formats, speed of rendering and expectations of consumers of external data. Not sure where this fits into the spectrum of tasks, but in order to determine suitability and usability, there are some operational considerations that should be discussed/realized in order to prioritize / order future tasks.