DRAPP 2016 Project Update Presented by: Ashley Summers March 2, - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master title style DRAPP 2016 Project Update Presented by: Ashley Summers March 2, 2017

Click to edit Master title style Agenda Click to edit Master title style • DRAPP 2016 • Project stats • Deliverables recap • Successes and challenges • Lessons learned • Survey results • DRAPP 2018 • Planning • Next Steps

Click to edit Master title style 2016 Project Stats Click to edit Master title style • Who’s Involved? • 50 Partners • 7 DRCOG Member Counties • 30 DRCOG Member Cities/Towns • 13 Regional Partners • What did we get? • 852 sqmi of 3 in resolution 4-band imagery • 2,877 sqmi of 6 in resolution 4-band imagery • 3,174 sqmi of 12 in resolution 4-band imagery • How much did it cost? • $846,000 (1% increase over 2014 cost)

Click to edit Master title style Deliverables Click to edit Master title style • Tiled and/or mosaicked imagery – delivered on hard drive • Web map services - • Sanborn (Google-hosted WMS/WMTS) • 2016 Final imagery • Harris MapMart • 2002 to 2016 Final imagery • Associated shapefiles • http://gis.drcog.org/datacatalog/search/node/drapp%202016 • Meeting materials • https://drcog.org//services-and-resources/data-maps-and- modeling/gis-maps/denver-regional-aerial-photography- project

Click to edit Master title style Timeliness of Deliverables Click to edit Master title style Deadline Deliverable Actual Delivery Date 8/1/2016 Interim imagery in WMS 7/29/2016 12/19/2016 Final imagery in WMS 1/24/2017 12/30/2016 20 orders delivered 1/6/2017 1/15/2017 20 orders delivered 1/30/2017 1/30/2017 Remaining orders 1/31/2017 delivered Note that not all of the above orders were complete. Some partners with SID orders received the remainder of their data in February.

Click to edit Master title style Successes Click to edit Master title style • In 2016, we maintained participation & costs while increasing quality and access options: • Adopted the latest ASPRS positional accuracy standards for digital geospatial data (which is 2x stricter than before) • Used a color survey and committee to determine aesthetic preferences at the beginning and middle of the project to better inform processing procedures • Used client deliverable checklists to make sure orders were filled correctly • Provided 2 WMS options • Hosted by Harris • Hosted by Sanborn

Challenges Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master title style • Two major snow events in the Front Range in the flight window • DIA air traffic control limited our access due to other flight requests, which delayed start times on several days • Sanborn’s Interim and Final WMS’ took more time to load than expected • Tiles projected into State Plane North originally experienced black edges at resolution boundaries • Creating multi-resolution SIDs (LizardTech bug) • Radiometry at resolution boundaries • Differing expectations/needs amongst partners?

Click to edit Master title style Issue Summary Click to edit Master title style • Fewer issues than Other DRAPP 2014 8% Aesthetics 16% • 16% of issues Sanborn (aesthetics) don’t WMS 18% impact usability for analysis SIDs 24% • 58% of issues could be mitigated by North Projection changing delivery 34% options

Click to edit Master title style Challenge: Seamline Issue Click to edit Master title style • What: Radiometric differences at resolution boundaries • Why: Flown on difference days with snow event in between • Color is a true reflection of ground conditions

Click to edit Master title style Challenge: Expectations Click to edit Master title style

Click to edit Master title style Things to Consider Click to edit Master title style • Challenging conditions and specs: • ~25 flight days required to complete spring DRAPP • Spring flight window occurs in our snowiest month and is only 46 days long • Imagery must be completely snow-free and leaf-free • Only so much can be done with color when ground condition change • Examples of trade-offs with image processing: • Increasing sharpness decreases visibility in shadows. Increasing visibility in shadows makes the imagery look “hazy.” • Blending at seamlines and matching histograms across large areas can degrade tile quality elsewhere.

Click to edit Master title style Flight Timing Click to edit Master title style April June March May

Click to edit Master title style Assumptions for Trade-offs Click to edit Master title style • Asset visibility is a priority: • Visibility in shadows OVER sharpness • Visibility on white rooftops OVER brightness • No leaves/snow OVER sequential flight dates • Survey-grade specs are a priority: • Horizontal positional accuracy OVER aesthetics • Zoomed-in quality OVER zoomed-out quality Should we reassess these assumptions?

Click to edit Master title style Lessons Learned Click to edit Master title style • More scrutiny on the boundaries between resolutions: • Do not segment municipalities or urbanized areas • WMS prep must start earlier due to the time required to load tiles • Project must be set up from the beginning to accommodate north projections

Click to edit Master title style Lessons Learned Click to edit Master title style • We need to meet with DIA ATC prior to the flight window to ensure they won’t deny our requests to fly at peak times. • We should do a comprehensive review of flight planning. • We should reconsider the flight window. • Modify pilot areas to better reflect scene content of entire area

Click to edit Master title style Survey Results: 2016 Partner Satisfaction Click to edit Master title style Very Good Good Fair Poor Overall 42% 54% 4% 0% Experience Communication 88% 13% 0% 0% Quality 35% 43% 17% 4% Timing of 17% 58% 17% 8% Deliverables DRCOG’s 70% 30% 0% 0% Performance Sanborn’s 29% 46% 25% 0% Performance Harris’ 29% 54% 17% 0% Performance

Click to edit Master title style Survey Results: 2016 Partner Satisfaction Click to edit Master title style Reasonable Somewhat High Much too High Cost 76% 16% 8% Aesthetics Positional Accuracy Both Equally Which is more 9% 17% 74% important? • Partner Uses for Data: • Basemap for visual interpretation, reference, webmapping • Publications • Desktop and mobile mapping • Public safety – police, fire, dispatch • GIS analysis • Heads-up digitizing • Vegetation analysis • Change detection

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master title style DR DRAPP APP 20 2018 18

Click to edit Master title style Survey Results: 2018 Planning Click to edit Master title style Yes No Don’t Know Planning 2018 74% 0% 26% participation? Collect entire region 39% 13% 48% every year? Consider including 30% 35% 35% off-season imagery? Mandatory inclusion 57% 17% 26% of planimetrics? Continue including 70% 9% 21% WMS? Adjust flight 65% 9% 26% windows?

Click to edit Master title style Survey Results: 2018 Planning Click to edit Master title style February (1 January (2 months October (5 month earlier) earlier) months early) Spring flight window 60% 35% 5% adjustment To July (1 month To August (2 extra) months extra) Spring flight window 65% 35% adjustment

Click to edit Master title style Considerations Click to edit Master title style If we adopt new things for 2018, what would the pros/cons be? Pros Cons Don’t collect the Could speed up delivery of Some partners (counties) wouldn’t entire region every high priority areas get full coverage of their AOI year Mandatory Could create consistent, Some partners don’t want the inclusion of regional datasets that can features nor the cost increase planimetrics be used for analysis, change detection etc. Include off-season Could leverage the success Could be expensive and time imagery of DRAPP to supply more consuming frequent imagery sources Adjust flight Could improve delivery May put more time in between windows times and image quality flight dates and make imagery less comparable to other years.

Click to edit Master title style More Discussion Questions Click to edit Master title style • Other strategies for success? • Further simplifying deliverables (e.g. no SIDs, less projections?) • Area outside your AOI delivered only as a WMS • Should we have a steering committee to figure these questions out? Or just refer to survey and email polls? • Do we want to do training for image manipulation – ArcGIS, Global Mapper, Photoshop? • What else?

Click to edit Master title style Next Steps Click to edit Master title style • Determine 2016 vendors (option to continue with existing) • Finalize 2018 project requirements • Vendor contracts • LOIs and partner contracts  Note: License agreements all expire this year and will need to be reissued for 2018!

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master title style QU QUESTIONS IONS/COMM /COMMENT ENTS?