 |
 |
Thanks Chris, I am aware that this part needs strengthening - howewer I wasn't sure what SMRs wanted, especially given the variable position of development of GIS. So I included something I had already written for another audience altogether and hoped that this would act as an 'Aunt Sally' for people to say what they would like to see. This part will change quite a bit - I want to do very much as you describe to include parts on how GIS data is created, what data, importance of metadata etc. thanks again - this is most useful Paul > -----Original Message----- > From: Wardle, Chris (DSD) [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: 09 December 1999 09:39 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: SMR Manual & GIS > > Having now had the chance to read the draft SMR Users Manual thoroughly, I > would argue that the section covering the use of SMRs make of GIS be > expanded at this point. > > The manual seeks to serve as a guide to good practice and sets out to > suggest how, ideally, an SMR should be created and maintained. Many of the > sections, such as those on access, go far beyond what is currently done in > Staffordshire (In fact they go some way beyond that which we even aspire > to!) and issues discussed at length. I don't have a problem with this. It > is precisely what the Manual set out to do. > > However, this is this does not seem to be the case with GIS: Whatever else > they may strive to do in future SMRs, or whatever they may be called in > future, are likely to remain an important tool in land use management. GIS > is likely to play an increasing role in development control and in > planning terms provides the ideal method of showing what environmental > constraints; Conservation Areas, biological interests, archaeological > interests or whatever, might affect a particular land parcel. > > I understand that GIS is an area in which things are changing rapidly, and > it is also an area that many SMRs are just starting to tackle. Currently > the Manual contains an outline of the potential offered by GIS, a brief > comment on the problems of linking GIS to existing datasets and the then a > couple of illustrations. There is no real mention of the need to spatially > define archaeological sites with 'shapes', 'boundaries' or term whatever > any particular software uses, and desirability to link these areas to the > dataset. Nor is there a word on the issue of what to do in the case of > those monuments or activities the extent or location of which is > uncertain. And since so much of the rest of the manual is aspirational in > nature, why is at least mention the goal (which we are a long way from at > the moment!) of having a dynamic linkage that enables a area search > conducted through the GIS produce a report from the database and a query > made through the database produce a map via the GIS? > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%