 |
 |
Sarah wrote:
There is no reason that someone with *responsibility* for the curtilages should not be the person who draws the shapes on the GIS - its not that tough. Or they can supply the information in an unambigous fashion. This is no more a problem than the definition of these kinds of entities on maps.
There are obviously problems with updating and version control, but the issue of where GIS fits into a structure of responsibilty seems key.
Quite right. As far as our Council's IT department is concerned the accuracy and quality of the GIS data is the responsibility of the relevant specialists, so we are responsible for the plotting of SAMs, archaeologically sensitive areas, Local Plan policy constraints etc, and the Conservation Officer has personally plotted all Listed Buildings including curtilages. If the source information is received from a third party, such as HS or RCAHMS, this is included in the metadata.
The GIS technicians and the IT team are responsible for software updates and technical support, and keep an audit trail for data management. I liaise with the GIS technician when he's batch- processing the buffer zones I have allocated around point data, but I have to buffer area and linear data because that requires archaeological judgements which he does not have the background for.
Andrew