Menu
Log in
Forgot password

Log in

Structures Framework

  • 01/03/2011 5:58 PM
    Quote
    Message # 488922
    Michael Fashoway
    The MSDI Discussion Forum is new, so I'll try this out and see how it goes. Feel free to post anything Structures Framework related to this topic. Or if you are a MAGIP member and would like to create new topic for a more specific discussion relating to structures (or addresses), go right ahead.

    If you are interested in the Structures Framework and/or MSDI in general and would like to stay informed, I'd recommend you subscribe to this topic or the MSDI forum in general. By subscribing, you will be notified when someone posts to the forum. As the Structures Framework Theme Lead, I've subscribed to both.

    With that said, post away!

    Michael
  • 03/09/2011 8:25 AM
    Quote
    Reply # 542189 on 488922
    Michael Sweet

    It would be nice to have a discussion forum for each MSDI layer like Structures.  Particularly a forum that would track threads on each discussion topic within a given MSDI layer -- rather than one long thread. I find it unfortunate that the GIS community in Montana has not embraced wikis for this purpose.  The College of Forestry and Conservation started a wiki site 2 years ago to support administration, research, and graduate-level classes. Forestry now has approximately 500 users spread among about 60 forums each.  The permission structure is granular down to the page level.  Of course, perhaps MAGIP should not be hosting a discussion forum for MSDI or at least covering the full cost.  There are individuals and entities that should be very much a part of the MSDI discussion, but may not be members of MAGIP.

    Thanks for throwing the idea out there.  I think we are a long way from figuring out what a viable communication structure looks like.

    Last modified: 03/09/2011 8:25 AM | Michael Sweet
  • 03/11/2011 7:45 AM
    Quote
    Reply # 543578 on 542189
    Michael Fashoway
    Michael Sweet wrote:

    It would be nice to have a discussion forum for each MSDI layer like Structures.  Particularly a forum that would track threads on each discussion topic within a given MSDI layer -- rather than one long thread. I find it unfortunate that the GIS community in Montana has not embraced wikis for this purpose.  The College of Forestry and Conservation started a wiki site 2 years ago to support administration, research, and graduate-level classes. Forestry now has approximately 500 users spread among about 60 forums each.  The permission structure is granular down to the page level.  Of course, perhaps MAGIP should not be hosting a discussion forum for MSDI or at least covering the full cost.  There are individuals and entities that should be very much a part of the MSDI discussion, but may not be members of MAGIP.

    Thanks for throwing the idea out there.  I think we are a long way from figuring out what a viable communication structure looks like.

    Mike,
    There probably are better ways to discuss and track discussions than a single thread discussion forum. But, there is nothing to say that someone who wants to discuss something in particular about a MSDI layer could starts a thread specifically for that - I didn't intend that all structures discussions would be lumped under my original post. I only posted it to make people aware that it existed and to encourage a dialog to begin about structures.
  • 03/14/2011 10:46 AM
    Quote
    Reply # 545537 on 543578
    Jason Danielson
    Michael Fashoway wrote:
    Michael Sweet wrote:

    It would be nice to have a discussion forum for each MSDI layer like Structures.  Particularly a forum that would track threads on each discussion topic within a given MSDI layer -- rather than one long thread. I find it unfortunate that the GIS community in Montana has not embraced wikis for this purpose.  The College of Forestry and Conservation started a wiki site 2 years ago to support administration, research, and graduate-level classes. Forestry now has approximately 500 users spread among about 60 forums each.  The permission structure is granular down to the page level.  Of course, perhaps MAGIP should not be hosting a discussion forum for MSDI or at least covering the full cost.  There are individuals and entities that should be very much a part of the MSDI discussion, but may not be members of MAGIP.

    Thanks for throwing the idea out there.  I think we are a long way from figuring out what a viable communication structure looks like.

    Mike,
    There probably are better ways to discuss and track discussions than a single thread discussion forum. But, there is nothing to say that someone who wants to discuss something in particular about a MSDI layer could starts a thread specifically for that - I didn't intend that all structures discussions would be lumped under my original post. I only posted it to make people aware that it existed and to encourage a dialog to begin about structures.

    Hi Mike. Thanks for using the MSDI discussion forum. Our MAGIP web subcommittee decided to create a generic MSDI forum alongside our already general forum pages (Tips and Tricks, Technical Problems, etc.). In order for future consideration of creating a forum for each MSDI layer, this existing MSDI forum needs to be used! This being said, our web subcommittee can certainly opt to create a forum for each layer at any time in the future.

    As Michael noted, a new discussion post can be created within the MSDI discussion forum, which essentially creates a new topic (transportation, wetlands, etc.). Members can then respond to specific topics.

    Thanks again for your post Mike.

    Jason
  • 03/30/2012 3:44 PM
    Quote
    Reply # 872828 on 488922
    Michael Fashoway
    An updated geodatabase of the Structures Framework is now available for download from the GIS Coordination website. In addition to the regular data updates that have occurred during the first quarter of this year, this update includes some changes to the database schema. Most noticeably, some of the address attributes in the FGDC-endorsed United States Thoroughfare, Landmark, and Postal Address Data Standard have been added and many of the existing attributes have been renamed. These changes will make it easier to incorporate address data from the many local and tribal governments that contribute data to the Framework and, it is hoped, will eventually lead to better geocoding results from our geocoding web service.

    For more information, please see the metadata or feel free to contact me. As always, feedback is welcome and appreciated.
Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software