LGIM Schema and Design

4556
5
05-24-2013 09:02 AM
Labels (1)
GIS-Cambria
Occasional Contributor II
All: I think it is helpful as a community to have a place to discuss changes and suggestions for the LGIM Schema. Finding a one stop shop for this is difficult because you can have ideas posted, or things noted in forums, or blog replies, etc.

So, to start what I hope is a great source for those implementing the LGIM and tweaking it for their purpose I create this forum thread.

First: has anyone but me noticed the MunicipalType domain value Burrough? Anything I've seen in US data uses Borough. Since this domain is used in the LGIM I recommend the change but what else will this effect?
0 Kudos
5 Replies
PatrickLockwitz
New Contributor III
I agree with your idea for having a place to suggest changes.  I thought about this the other day too.  I figure ESRI will tell us to suggest the change in the "Ideas" section of the website and they will tell us they will consider changes based on the interest from the community.  I've gotten this response before.  Is this still true ESRI?  I looked at the Ideas website the other day, there were not many points for the few suggestions listed.  One idea was marked "under consideration".  It would be nice for ESRI to be more receptive to changes and make them more frequently, even if it does mean more work for us to convert to an updated data model more frequently.  But ESRI should be developing tools to help with the conversion process from one LGIM model to another.

I am deeply involved in converting to the LGIM because I want to take advantage of tools/functionality that uses the LGIM.  However, there is a lot of work still involved in customizing the LGIM for our own local use, south Florida.  As I continue the work, I'm going to continue posting comments questions in here and hope it works the best for me.  I have a hard time doing searches on these too.  I feel I don't get the same search results as I did before with the old school ESRI KB.

You mention changing a domain.  We are changing the domains all the time, usually rebuilding them and taking ESRIs domains as suggestions.  I figure it doesn't matter much because local terminology is different throughout the country for the same thing as long as we make the adjustments in the .mxd's after all of the data is in the LGIM in order to get the mxd to display the data as it was intended to be displayed.
EricPieniak
New Contributor II

I have found the same as you describe. We had waited for many months for help from ESRI, as promised, to understand intent - ex. reclaimed water, sewer and storm sewer questions – this to limit customizations as is our directive.

My understanding is the LGIM current state was the attempt at creating a simplified version based off some very sophisticated models – some round pegs didn’t fit in the simple square hole - we are now aiming inbetween (some customizations).  Advice from ESRI is to customize as needed, but use aliases and whatever we can to limit actual model changes. We have brought many things to ESRI's attention and they have told us that their developers will welcome – one is separating reclaimed water from potable. There are many other obvious oversights in the utilities models and creation templates.  We are noting these and communicating them to ESRI – many of these I would expect other Utility owners will be requesting the same or welcoming – ex. Air release valve diameter set to update to connecting pipe diameter in attribute template – depending on what detail you are collecting pipes/connecting stems, and within control valve this might occur in the simple model, but not enough to set rule - detailed pipes, then yes.  Just to your note, we have made individual domains for most – using shared domains is not going to work well, ESRI is well aware of this one, and likely working to improve them. I did think there would be plenty of documentation as usual with ArcMap comparing to other vendors tools like Autodesk Map 3D (very bad, with lots of outdated help), but not so much in regard to LGIM. We still have a lot to work through.

GIS-Cambria
Occasional Contributor II
Well, for those that hope to use this forum for information here's a feature I've added to the AdministrativeArea dataset: DistrictMagistrates. We decided to include this in the AdministrativeArea dataset because it's a judicial boundary that represents local court administration. The schema will be based on VotingPrecinct and use table relations for the judge info and magistrate location points

Also for those of us in PA I created a Coded Value Domain for ElevationIndex and set all of the elevation features to use this domain on the ELEVINDEX field. The code/value pairs match the PAMAP Lidar contour types.
Value|Description
0|Index Contours
1|Intermediate Contours
2|Index Depression Contours
3|Intermediate Depression Contours
ScottOppmann
Esri Contributor
Thanks for starting this thread gang.  Please feel free to use the ArcGIS Ideas site to log major enhancements you'd like to see as well.
GIS-Cambria
Occasional Contributor II
I've created a new domain called CensusMTFCC and assigned it to the Demography/CensusLandmarkPoint feature class. The field is MTFCC.
To create the domain first import the 3 .csv files into your LGIM database as tables; or, at least import the MTFCCCodes.csv--I suggest prefixing the table name with lut for look up table. The 3 files I've included are the result of research into CFCC and MTFCC http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/tgrshp2009/TGRSHP09.txt and a few other resources that seem harder to find now. The tables in the attached .zip provide look up references for CFCC (which includes the MTFCC crosswalk), the full details for MTFCC, and a summarized MTFCC codes table.

To create the domain use Table to Domain on the MTFCCCodes table and set the Code Field to MTFCCCODE and Description Field to MTFCCClass. You can figure out the rest.

In my opinion this should become a standard domain and reference tables in the LGIM.
0 Kudos