This article is a personal assessment of the state of mapping in Australian jurisdictions. It attempts to produce a 'league table' by which we might compare how the states are using their spatial capabilities to improve internal and external business processes.
The article is partly stimulated by a recent claim made by Michelle Roberts, the minister for land information in Western Australia (see p14). At a recent conference, she claimed that WA has the most advanced mapping system in Australia, if not the world.
It is also a follow-up to my article in this journal twelve months ago (Position 20; December 2005; p70) in which I assessed the way that spatial technologies were supporting and delivering on the e-government initiatives promoted so strongly by state governments.
My focus in that article was on the delivery of spatial information to the public, especially online. My focus now is upon spatially dependent business processes.
The first problem with this project was to decide on the best business processes by which to assess the state of mapping in each jurisdiction. It is arguable whether those that I have selected are the best, but at least they will give some structure to the debate. The same methodology might be used to argue the case for different processes, which others might consider just as valid, and which might produce different results.
It is important to note one fact about my approach to this challenge. In keeping with the e-government thrust of the previous article, my sole information source is the internet.
Last year, I concluded that the spatial community has been successful in adopting the technology and harnessing its data for its own use. But I also suggested that there was still some way to go in making spatial data available to the public. This is especially so in those agencies where data is used as a tool to achieve some other end, rather than being the end itself.
This is a significant issue. The success of spatial technologies will not be measured by the spatial industry alone, but by its contribution to wider business and government functions.
Hence, my choice of the following criteria as measures of progress: the relevance of online access to government business processes; the degree of mapping interaction with public surveyors; online production of maps; the impact of mapping strategies on organisational structure; the integration of valuation and mapping; the integration of mapping and planning; progress in rural addressing; and the impact on local government.
It became clear very quickly that finding comparative information on some of the criteria would not be possible. I leave the analysis of business flow improvements in map production, rural addressing and valuation to others.
But I was able to get useful data for comparison in the other fields. We can start first with online access to data. Clearly this is important, and all states achieve it well.
Over the past twelve months, however, little appears to have changed in this area. The public internet faces of the WALIS Atlas, Information Queensland's online atlas, Planning SA's online atlas, Tasmania's LIST and IRIS and Victoria's Land Channel are unchanged. There may be a lot going on in the background, but it is not visible.
The exception to this is the upgrade of the NSW Department of Lands' website and its portal, the Spatial Information Exchange. It is not an interactive atlas such as one finds in other jurisdictions. For the most part, it only delivers data that is the responsibility of the department, but it does deliver a lot of it. Moreover, it supports many business processes involved in land development, such as surveying and conveyancing, in a much clearer manner than other states.
This advance is underpinned by a new integrated IT architecture, which has been developed over the past three years.
The second basis for comparison is the institutional integration of mapping with titling, valuation and other functions. The development of land information systems in the 1980s was largely driven by recognition of the interdependence of mapping, titling and valuation in the land administration process. Gradually, institutional restructuring led to these three functions being located within the same department.
But organisations continue to reflect their own pasts. There are few moves towards common data collection, analysis, management or delivery processes. There are still separate titles and valuation offices in most states, albeit co-located in a larger agency.
In each state, the departments with mapping, titling and valuation functions also have other responsibilities. This is reflected in their names: Lands in NSW (which also is responsible for Crown Lands); Sustainability and Environment in Victoria; Natural Resources and Water in Queensland; Planning in South Australia; Land Information in Western Australia; and Primary Industries and Water in Tasmania.
But if one accepts the assessment of most researchers - that 80 per cent of government decisions are spatial - it is unrealistic to expect all the business functions that need maps to be combined in one agency.
The alternative is the provision of standard spatial presentation technology for use across all of government. This leads to a unification of business operations, reduced costs, less duplication and better data integration.
The Shared Land Information Platform in WA is perhaps the ultimate example of such a facility. It will deliver more than just a standard map display tool for agencies to use. Information Queensland is heading in a similar direction. Agencies as diverse as Qld Health and Urban Development are using a common presentation tool and an underlying spatial information architecture.
NSW is in the early stages of this type of thinking, and is taking a strategic approach. The state recently began implementing its spatial data infrastructure.
Victoria has Mapshare and Tasmania has IRIS, although both websites present data as individual themes. This is often inadequate, because complex operations such as urban and regional planning need a number of themes superimposed.
The third plank of this comparative analysis revolves around data integration to support economic applications. Viewing topographic and cadastral data, imagery, survey marks, etc, is relatively easy, once one has mastered access to internet portals, and discovered the sources.
But obtaining information that can be overlaid on a map to underpin business processes that are not obviously spatial is more problematic. The fact that most states have at least two distinct map display systems does not help. Commonly, one system is used for mapping and land administration information, the other involves information handled by agencies other than the spatial information body.
WA and SA are probably closest to full information overlay, although both link to other atlases, potentially inhibiting easy spatial analysis for many business purposes.
Tasmania has a dual approach to interactive mapping. The LIST handles cadastral and topographic information and IRIS deals with almost all other business themes.
In Victoria, the property, titles and maps pages of the Department of Sustainability and Environment's web site present the user with multiple options. Depending on the application, they use at least two different interfaces, although they use the same spatial base.
In NSW, Land's Spatial Information Exchange portal focuses on land administration processes, and is complemented by the Natural Resources Atlas (formerly known as CANRI) that is maintained by the Department of Natural Resources.
In all states, information that would be valuable in many business processes cannot be overlaid easily. It is confusing to find and difficult to use. Much remains to be done.
Yet another point of comparison concerns e-conveyancing. Relations between surveyors and the information infrastructure are slowly improving along predictable lines. Improvements are being made to survey plan lodgement, so that numeric survey data can directly update the DCDB.
Such changes will help eliminate the necessity to physically deposit plans at land titles' offices.
A national data model has been established. It is being tested in Queensland, where staff are assessing the effects of e-lodgement on plan auditing and data processing. The next steps, such as online conveyancing and transfer of title are being developed through the National Electronic Conveyancing Office (NEC).
Victoria is developing a pilot electronic conveyancing system in collaboration with the NEC, the State Revenue Office, and with legal, conveyancing and financial institutions as a proof of concept.
In relation to the integration of planning and electronic mapping, it has always surprised me that planning has not been more closely involved in the evolution of spatial information. Of all government business functions, surely planning - and the monitoring of planning decisions - is the most spatial.
It seems reasonable to expect mapping to closely support a jurisdiction's planning activities. But only South Australia directly links mapping and planning co-located in Planning SA. In most other states, land zoning information is accessible from planning agency websites. Sometimes it is interactive and overlaid on DCDBs; other times it is presented only as viewable pdfs. NSW is the only state to have no online mapbased statewide information on zoning and local plans.
Development applications are an important component of planning. There are many moves towards electronic DA submission. The Victorian SPEAR system is one example of an electronic, online alternative to a paper-based DA approvals' process. In two years Queensland's Smart eDASmart eDA should allow users to lodge development applications via the internet; to track the progress of an application; and to communicate electronically with other stakeholders including applicants, assessment managers, the community and referral agencies - all through a single, secure online portal. Some jurisdictions have also introduced online tracking facilities, which display the location of an application, and its assessment progress. However, in states where local councils have carriage of development assessment, this service depends on the resources, priorities and the level of interest of the council.
So, what about the relationship between local governments and state mapping? I selected a random sample of 51 metropolitan and rural councils, across all states. The aim was to see how mapping was used in their websites, and make an assessment on whether state mapping strategies contribute to council website content.
In summary, almost half of sampled sites had no maps whatsoever, and only about 16 per cent had interactive maps. About a fifth of those with maps used state data, others used a mix of commercial and home-grown data. From these it would appear that - at council level at least - state mapping strategies are not impacting greatly.
Samples from NSW and Victoria showed the greatest proportion (20 per cent) of councils using state mapping in online maps. But in all states, councils used more of their own or commercial data to populate web maps.
In the planning field, the major interstate difference depended on the presence of a centralised approach or service. In those states with a strong state involvement in local planning, nearly half of all sampled councils had direct links to state planning online zoning data. In NSW, 80 per cent of sampled councils displayed no planning data.
Universally, electronic lodgement at council level was sparse with only seven per cent offering this service. Online DA progress tracking was similarly limited, although almost a fifth of councils displayed listings of council planning decisions on their website.
My conclusions? Government web portals are not easy to navigate, despite the research that has gone into them. The various categorisations of life events and government services are not conducive to finding out how a specific agency operates, or its progress in areas such as mapping.
Once one discovers the right agency, some information was forthcoming fairly easily, but much was obtainable only through persistent digging and my own knowledge. This was also the case with council websites, where it was often surprisingly difficult even finding out if there was a map of the area on the site.
Because of this, it is possible that my assessment of state mapping strategies and their impact upon business processes is flawed. More persistence in delving into myriad information in websites may have produced a different result. Also, the findings are based on my interpretation of reports on progress of relevant projects.
On the other hand, information that cannot be found is no different from information that does not exist. Overall though, mapping strategies in all states now appear to be at lift-off point. States that are ahead in one area are often behind in others. NSW is a case in point. The use of spatial information in planning has gone backwards. On the other hand, the state is making good advances in its SDI thrust and spatial technology architecture. It also has shown a strong commitment of mapping data and technology to other business functions such as emergency management. Clearly, states learn from the successes of others. As projects succeed in one, we are likely to see them adopted in others.
From my assessment it seems that the WA Minister for Land Information has some basis for her claim, but only just! Each state has some areas where it is competitive, and some where it is not. Overall, the differences between states are minor, but there is still a long way to travel before the reality of state mapping services matches the rhetoric of state leaders.
Tony Hart is a consultant and freelance journalist. He has worked at senior levels in both the Queensland and NSW bureaucracies.
