Between the Poles

Visualizing underground infrastructure for multiple utilities on a single map

The National Underground Asset Register (NUAR) is intended to be a comprehensive digital map of all underground pipes and cables owned and operated by 650 asset owners in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. When deployed it will provide immediate access to UK underground asset data online from handhelds and other devices to qualified excavators and their contractors.  A unique capability that differentiates NUAR from other underground data management systems lies in its ability to combine and visualize underground infrastructure of many different network operators on a single map.

Background to NUAR

In 2018 the Northumbrian Water Group Innovation Festival brought together 20 utilities, telecoms, and local government authorities in Newcastle upon Tyne to voluntarily collaborate in developing a shared underground infrastructure map showing the location of water, wastewater, gas, electricity, telecoms and other underground services provided by the network owners. Later extended to Central London, it became the pilot for what subsequently became the NUAR project sponsored and funded by the Geospatial Commission, part of the UK Government Cabinet Office.

Integrating underground data from different utilities

One key differentiator of the NUAR project is combining and visualizing underground utility data sourced from different utilities on a single map. Globally every utility has developed its own terminology for describing its network facilities, its own ways of graphically symbolizing different equipment, its own choice of base map showing road centre lines and other land base features and its own standards for network documentation.

A major advantage of mapping infrastructure in the UK is that every network operator records the location of their facilities against the same national base map, the Ordnance Survey's MasterMap. In North America in contrast every utility uses a different base map. Conflating utility data to the same base map is a complicated process which inhibits the development of a representation of underground infrastructure on a single map. In the UK the common national base map provides a foundation for displaying data from many utilities on a single base map. But to meaningfully combine and visualize data from different utilities on a single map requires that data providers agree on standards for data elements, terminology, symbology and templates for network documentation.

Developing a harmonized data model

The first version of the data model was developed in conjunction with about 40 utilities who participated in the North East of England and Central London pilots.  Fortunately the development of the Open Geospatial Consortium's open standard for exchanging underground data Model for Underground Data Definition and Integration (MUDDI) coincided with the NUAR pilot. The NUAR project became the first project to implement MUDDI in the real world.  MUDDI supports profiles that enable the MUDDI model to be adapted for different uses cases and countries. For NUAR the UK Excavation Profile was used. Participation in the MUDDI initiative enables the NUAR data model to be openly available to network operators and other organizations who choose to adopt it as a standard for their own data operations.

The central guideline that has guided the development of the model from its inception during the pilot was the need to minimize structural elements that hardwired the model. With a rapidly evolving model it was essential to be able to change different aspects the model without having to reconfigure the entire model as each new utility's data brought new changes. The result was the development of ways of modelling utility networks that differed from what had been used in previous utility models. Examples include defining general feature types that could be qualified using attributes rather than structures making them more flexible, allowing a single feature table to support multiple spatial data types (points, lines and polygons) rather than separate tables for each data type, and implementing codelists separate from the data model making it possible to change them without republishing the model.

During the initial build phase of the project each it was found that new utility data source continued to bring changes to the model. At this point it had become more essential to carefully manage changes resulting from incorporating data sets from new asset owners because of the potential impact on the data that had already been brought into the model.  

As new data is brought into the system, new feature types are discovered, for example, EV charging points, so that over time the data model is becoming more comprehensive with the potential for supporting additional use cases. In addition it is important to support the interaction of NUAR with external systems by making data types general and accessible to multiple systems and incorporating fields for capturing codes unique to the external systems. In the future this will make it possible to support work flows in which network operators' data systems provide direct data updates to the NUAR database.

One of the important realizations during the development of the Ordnance Survey MasterMap was the critical importance of object identifiers (OIDs). As new data flows in to be analyzed and brought into the NUAR model, it is being found that many asset owners have not implemented feature identifiers. One of the long term benefits of the development of the NUAR data model may be instilling in industry data modelling practice the importance of unique feature identifiers.

Progress of NUAR build phase

At the time of Amy Manefield's presentation at the SUMSF conference in March, the NUAR team had engaged with all 250 asset owners in the three initial regions of the North East of England, Wales and London. Data Exploration Agreements (DEA) had been signed with 88 of these utilities. The DEA allowed the data from these utilities to be explored, analyzed and the process of transforming it to be initiated. Of the utilities with DEA agreements 42 had already shared their data with the NUAR team and over a dozen of these data sets had been successfully transformed to the NUAR harmonized data model.

 

This post is based on Amy Manefield's talk at the Subsurface Utility Mapping Strategy Forum (SUMSF). Amy Manefield is NUAR Head of Data Operations at the NUAR project of the Geospatial Commission.

Federal initiatives in Canada to improve subsurface locating to reduce damage during construction

A remarkable initiative within the Federal government in Canada to improve mapping of Federally regulated underground infrastructure and infrastructure on Federal lands was presented at the Ontario Regional Common Ground Alliance (ORCGA) 2020 Symposium in Ottawa.  This initiative is being driven by Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC).  It is intended to become a model for Federal agencies with real property assets such as PSPC, National Defense and Parks Canada, to implement damage prevention programs and Federal regulatory agencies including Transport Canada, Canada Energy Regulator and Innovation, and Science and Economic Development (ISED) to develop a damage prevention mandates.

Background

At the Ontario Regional Common Ground Alliance (ORCGA) 2020 meeting in Ottawa Mike Sullivan, President of the Canadian Common Ground Alliance (CCGA), provided an overview of the efforts at the federal level to implement federal damage prevention mandates. In 2012 the CCGA released a white paper, Damage Prevention Legislation Elements Required for Canada, articulating a series of principles and specific elements for effective legislation that would result in greater protection of underground infrastructure and community safety.  In the same year Bill 8, the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act 2012, was passed in the Ontario Legislature.  In 2015 CSA Z247 the first Damage Prevention Standard in Canada was released. It describes the damage prevention process and elements would reduce damages to Canada's underground infrastructure improving public, worker and community safety and preserving the environment,  It was sponsored by the National Energy Board, Natural Resources Canada, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association and the Canadian Gas Association.  In 2014 the Senate Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment, and Natural Resources completed two studies; Moving Energy Safely: A Study of the Safe Transport of Hydrocarbons by Pipelines, Takers and Railcars and Digging Safely - One Call Notification Systems and the Prevention of Damage to Canada's Buried Infrastructure.  The Senate Standing Committee followed this with specific recommendations;

1 That the federal government reference the CSA Z247 standard for protection and prevention of damage to buried infrastructure and encourage provinces and territories to reference the standard in legislation.

2 That buried facilities on federal land be registered with a provincial or territorial one-call services and that the federal government require anyone undertaking excavation on federal land to call the local one-call centre.
3 That the federal government require all owners of federally regulated buried infrastructure to become members of a provincial or territorial one-call service.

In its 2016 report on the state of our knowledge about the location of underground infrastructure in Canada, the Professional Surveyors Canada working group concluded that underground infrastructure in Canada is often not surveyed or mapped accurately, if at all. Currently the systems in Canada dealing with underground infrastructure are a patchwork of regulatory and voluntary regimes. They range from the City of Edmonton which maintains a database of underground infrastructure and the City of Calgary that mandates that information about underground infrastructure be shared among utilities and communications firms operating within city limits, through to one-call centres operating in the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec, and others. 

The Professional Surveyors Canada working group is very clear about the problems with the current regulatory regimes and business practices in Canada; creates loss of use situations to critical infrastructure such as telecommunications; creates hazards for workers; creates inefficiencies in locates for customers; reduces efficiencies and productivity of one call systems; increases cost for new development; increases cost for each new installation of underground infrastructure; greatly increases the amount of redundant locates being done; increases risk to the public; and increases risk to the environment.

Several provinces have on call centres similar to many states in the U.S. Howerer, there are some significant differences.  In Ontario a utility operator is required to mark on the ground the location of its underground infrastructure and provide a written document containing information describing the location of the underground infrastructure.  This differs from many state one-call centres in the U.S. where a written document is not required.

British Columbia is the only jurisdiction in North America that I know of where it is not mandatory for each member (network operator) identified by the one call centre to visit the site of a proposed excavation. In response to a request from British Columbia One Call, within three business days each network operator is required either (1) provide plans (paper or digitally, typically a PDF or paper) of their underground services showing the location of their facilities on or near the excavation site or (2) visit the site to physically mark the location of their facilities, or (3) provide digging instructions and other safety information. This can be very efficient for network operators because, similar to the Flanders KLIP and Dutch KLIC systems, it is not mandatory for each network operator maintain a large fleet of locate vans to visit the sites of all proposed excavations. On the other hand, it puts the onus on the excavator for validating the information provided on paper or digitally by network operators by an onsite locate.

At the federal level Senate Bill S-229, which was introduced in 2015 and passed third reading in the Senate in May 2017, aimed to create a notification mechanism for underground infrastructure on federal lands and for federally regulated underground infrastructure.  It would have required that federal agencies register with provincial or territorial one-call centres and develop the capacity to respond to requests for information from one-call centres.   Furthermore it would have required that federal regulators of buried infrastructure to develop a damage prevention mandate. But at the time, there was not an appetite in the Government to act on this bill and it died on the order sheet in the House of Commons and never became law. 

Initiative to implement the spirit of S-229 in the Federal government

However, it turns out that the objectives of S-229 did not die there.  At the Ontario Regional Common Ground Alliance (ORCGA) meeting Ravi Sundararaj, who is leading a Protection of Underground Infrastructure initiative in the Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC), provided an overview of many of the provisions of S-229 are actually being implemented by PSPC.  Two years ago the Minister of Public Services and Procurement (PSPC) decided to implement the provisions of S-229. PSPC is responsible for all infrastructure on Federal land and saw this as a way of doing a better job at what it is mandated to do.

The plan was for the PSPC implementation to become a model for other government departments which would see the benefits of this approach to reducing damage to underground utilities and implements similar measures.  There are about a hundred departments and agencies in the Federal government, of which 23 are custodians of real property assets.  PSPC, National Defense and Parks Canada are the largest.

Under this initiative implementing protection for buried assets through the existing operational framework for federal custodial assets requires that buried assets on federal land be registered with a provincial or territorial one-call services; and that the federal government require anyone undertaking construction or excavation on federal land to call the local one-call or damage prevention service.  Secondly, the federal government requires all owners of federally regulated buried infrastructure become members of a provincial or territorial one-call or damage prevention service.

To be able to respond to request for information requires the Federal government to develop and maintain maps of its underground infrastructure through its Geomatics capacity. To do that requires determining what information it intends to share taking into consideration Government of Canada security requirements.

The first stage of the PSPC initiative is the National Capital Area (NCA). It requires first of all compiling maps of existing Federal underground infrastructure enabling the government to respond to information requests.  Secondly it requires that Federal agencies and owners of Federally regulated infrastructure to register with provincial and territorial one-call centres. In the case of the initial NCA project this means registering with Ontario One Call.

When Ontario One Call receives a request for information about underground utilities for a proposed excavation, PSPC as the custodian is notified. In the case of a proposed excavation PSPC then does one of the following

1. Provides a digital or paper map of underground infrastructure in the area of the proposed excavation
2. Carries out a subsurface survey and marks the ground
3. Confirms that there is no infrastructure in the area

In the case of a request relating to a planning activity PSPC sprovide a digital or paper map of underground infrastructure in the area of the proposed excavation or confirms that there is no known infrastructure in the area.  It is interesting that this process requires that if information about the underground infrastructure in the area is missing or incomplete, the PSPC is required to conduct a subsurface survey of the area with the resulting map provided to the Federal Geomatics site.  This enables PSPC to respond with accurate maps of the area the next time an information request as received.  Over time this process would lead to comprehensive geospatial data on underground infrastructure on the Federal Geospatial site.

The immediate goal is to develop a PSPC Directive, Standard and Guidelines for the protection of underground infrastructure. This requires engaging with provincial and territorial one call centres, developing the capability to respond to requests for information, and developing business processes to improve the accuracy, timeliness, and comprehensiveness of the data about underground infrastructure that is maintained by the Federal Geomatics group.

The longer term goal is for Treasury Board to encourage custodians of real property asets assets such as National Defense and Parks Canada, as well as regulatory agencies including Transport Canada, Canada Energy Regulator and Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED) to adopt similar policies so that this approach to damage prevention becomes pervasive in the Federal government.

This is an important initiative that provides a model for other Federal departments, agencies, and regulatory bodies. As a  federal initiative it also provides a model for provincial, territorial and municipal governments, and regulatory agencies and network operators.  Perhaps more importantly it signals just how important this is for public safety and for the Canadian economy.

Accelerating progress in open spatial data infrastructure at the municipal level in Canada

At the SDI Summit in Quebec City Gordon Plunkett offered an interesting perspective on the penetration of open spatial data infrastructure (SDI) at the municipal level in Canada.  Local governments are traditionally responsible for local services such as safety, infrastructure, environment, and recreation that directly impact citizens' daily life. But citizens are often not aware of available services. To increase citizen engagement local governments should make their services more easy to use, understandable, and relevant by providing them in visual form via web pages and web apps.

Background

Open data has been gathering momentum among governments initially driven by United States Federal Government data being in the public domain (since 1909.) The principle of free and open access to government geospatial data has been adopted by many governments including US Federal, Canada, Japan, South Africa, Brazil, California state and counties, and by the City of Vancouver and other cities.  In 2013 G8 leaders (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, United States, and the European Union) signed a charter on open data.  The Ordnance Survey in the UK began releasing some of its data with open licensing as part of its OpenData initiative in 2010, but it wasn't until 2018 that the OS Mastermap was made openly available for the public and businesses to use. But being able to access prepared maps and other derived material is just a first step, governments need to provide access to raw geospatial data in commonly used Web-friendly formats. In the U.S. Data.gov was launched in late 2009.  In 2013, President Obama issued an Executive Order making open and machine readable the new default for federal government information in the United States.

In Canada the Government of Canada announced its Open Government Action Plan in 2012.  The fundamental principle was a government-wide directive making government information and data available to the public by default. Geospatial has led the development of open data in Canada.  Of the 80,000+ datasets that are available on the federal government's open data portal, 69,000+ are geospatial. Currently in addition to the federal government eleven provinces and territories and over 60 municipalities have open data portals. At the municipal level Vancouver has been in the forefront of municipal open data - Vancouver's open data portal was initiated in September 2009.  In November 2009  the City of Toronto launched Toronto.ca/open, the City of Toronto's official beta data set catalogue, which provided open access to city data.  In January 2010 the City of Edmonton opened Edmonton's open data catalogue, which made city data including geospatial data openly available.  In 2010 Ottawa created an Open Data Ottawa site to encourage digital innovation, improved service delivery, and stimulation of economic growth.

A major motivation for open data has been government transparency.  But there is also evidence that open geospatial data contributes to the economy.  In 2008  Australia and later New Zealand commissioned studies of the contribution of spatial data to the national economy that have concluded that with appropriate government policies the contribution to the GDP, estimated to be on the order of 1%, could be doubled.  In 2015 Natural Resources Canada released the Canadian Geomatics Environmental Scan and Economic Value Study that estimated the contribution of the geospatial sector to the Canadian economy to be on the order of $21 billion.

Current state of open SDIs in Canada

Interoperability is key for an effective SDI. The inability to easily share data is a serious constraint on the value that can be derived from it. Gordon presented a simple SDI interoperability maturity matrix. Most municipalities probably fit into what he called syntactic interoperability, the ability to share data using common file formats and APIs.  Some have ventured in sharing data at the semantic level, which means recognizing content through shared data models such as the Canadian Municipal Data Model (CMDM), National Road Network (NRN), and NENA standards for 9-1-1.  A few are venturing into addressing the issue of different names for the same objects in different jurisdictions or in different disciplines.

Patterns of use for SDI include mapping and visualization, monitoring, field mobility, data management, analytics, sharing and collaboration, decision support, citizen engagement, and design and planning. 

Perhaps the top challenge for local governments, who hold the data that is most directly relevant to citizens, is making them aware of what is available and how to use is to address their every day concerns. Gordon presented some examples across Canada of interesting open data portals: Kamloops, British Columbia; Saint John, New Brunswick; Halifax Regional Municipality, Nova Scotia, which have made a lot of geospatial and other data available on open portals; St Albert, Alberta which enables citizens to report broken infrastructure and track progress in resolving issues; Regina, Saskatchewan which also makes a lot of data available on an open portal; Red River Planning District, whose site is heavily used during the annual Red River flood season; Brampton, Ontario, a poster child for open data and citizen engagement; Repentigny, Quebec, which enables users to easily determine the availability of municipal services close to where they live or intend to live; Prince Edward Island Hydro, which shows current electricity outages; and Mount Pearl, Newfoundland, whose portal include a parcel map in addition to roads and other basic map layers.

I would suggest that another data layer that should be part of every comprehensive SDI and that is missing in virtually all local, provincial, and federal SDIs is accurate maps of underground infrastructure in public right-of-ways.  Not knowing the location of underground cables and pipes has important implications for citizen safety and the reliable delivery of essential services.

In summary, local governments are traditionally responsible for local services such as safety, infrastructure, environment, and recreation that directly impact citizens' daily life. But citizens are often not aware of available services.  Local government can improve citizen engagement by making their services to more easy to use, understandable, and relevant by providing them in visual form via web pages and web apps.

Is it ethical to bury dangerous infrastructure in the public right-of-way without accurate maps ?

This is a readable version of a video that I submitted to the EthicalGEO site.

Without accurate maps of where underground infrastructure is located, every construction project has the potential to become a disaster site. Unlike the aviation industry where reliable data is collected and is accessible to investigators to prevent disasters from happening in the future, there is limited access to data about the location of underground infrastructure and what data is accessible is often inaccurate, out-of-date and incomplete with the result that serious incidents during construction with injuries and fatalities occur again and again.

Just about every month the news carries reports of explosions caused by damage to underground utilities during construction excavation. In the last few months of this year there have been explosions in Murrieta, California (July) where a utility worker was killed and 15 others injured, downtown San Francisco (February), Durham, North Carolina (May), and I could go on. These incidents are more frequent than many people realize.

This is not an impossible problem. A number of cities, regions and countries around the world have recognized the importance of accurate information about the location of underground infrastructure and implemented processes to reduce the risk of these events. For example, comparing the United States and Japan reveals a startling difference in the number of incidents of underground utility damage during construction. The number of incidents in the U.S. is about 400,000 per year (roughly one every minute). For all of Japan the number of incidents in 2016 was 137. Clearly something can be done to reduce the risk for construction workers and the public.

Returning to the comparison with the aviation industry, when major airplane crashes occur, such as the recent Boeing 737 Max 8 incidents, there is highly accurate data accessible to investigators to determine the cause and implement measures to prevent similar crashes in the future. Annual statistics show that fatalities per passenger mile in the airline industry have dropped dramatically from its high in 1929 and continues to drop. In contrast in the case of underground infrastructure there is limited access to location information and the data that is available is often inaccurate, out-of-date, and incomplete.  The number of incidents of underground utility damage is not decreasing.

How do we begin to address this issue cost-effectively ? It is estimated that in the U.S. about $10 billion is devoted annually to locating underground infrastructure prior to and during construction. But this location information is rarely shared, with the result that the same underground utilities are located over and over again. If policies, organizational structures and technologies were applied to capturing and sharing the location of utilities and other infrastructure exposed during construction, this could be a cost-effective way to begin the process of incrementally creating accurate maps of underground infrastructure and making it possible to share this information with the people who need it most, planners, designers, excavators and construction contractors.

Over the years I have personally compiled information on 25 jurisdictions in the Americas, Europe, and Asia Pacific that have implemented various policies and organizational structures for sharing information about the location of underground infrastructure. These range from government mandated measures to private companies, industry associations, and voluntary consortia.

The concept I am proposing is to develop a community to share information about alternative policies, organizational structures, and technologies for sharing the information about the underground infrastructure that is exposed prior to and during construction.  Based on the premise that one size does not fit all, this community would share information about what they have done to enable sharing of information about the location of underground infrastructure.  Governments, private companies, consortia, industry associations, airports, universities, and others who are concerned about improving the accessibility and quality of location data for underground infrastructure would be invited to participate.  The ultimate objective would be to begin making a dent in the number of incidents of underground utility damage and the attendant casualties.

If you agree with the premise that it is unethical to bury dangerous infrastructure in the public right-of-way without accurate maps,  I encourage you to go to EthicalGEO site, watch my video and then make sure you rate it - not based on its quality, it's my first video - but on its content.  This will contribute to raising the profile of this very serious issue in North America.

Severely restricted access to critical infrastructure information in the U.S.

The Critical Infrastructure Information Act of 2002 of the U.S. Congress provides a mechanism for severely restricting access to proprietary critical infrastructure information voluntarily shared by network operators with the federal government.  It prevents consumers and organizations from accessing this information under the Freedom of Information Act, by a regulatory agency, or as part of civil litigation.  What this means is that a utility, telecom, or other organization can elect to submit proprietary network information including the location of above and below ground facilities to the Department of Homeland Security's critical infrastructure information program (PCII) after which it is protected from access by anyone except certified Federal government employees and contractors.

Introduction

Information about infrastructure in the United States is regulated by an act of Congress and several presidential directives. The earliest federal directive is the 1998 Presidential Decision Directive/NSC-63 Critical Infrastructure Protection that identified the need for a private public partnership, preferably voluntary, to protect critical infrastructure.  The Critical Infrastructure Information (PCII) Act of 2002 followed very closely after September 11, 2001,   The Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7 in 2003 established a national policy for Federal departments and agencies to identify and prioritize critical infrastructure and to protect them from terrorist attacks.  The Presidential Policy Directive 21 (PPD-21), Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience of 2013, established a national policy on critical infrastructure security and resilience as a shared responsibility among the Federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial governments and public and private owners and operators of critical infrastructure. This directive also clarifies the critical infrastructure-related responsibilities across the Federal Government.  The National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) 2013 is a plan resulting from Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7. The NIPP's goals are to protect critical infrastructure and key resources and ensure resiliency. The NIPP is based on the 1998 Presidential Decision Directive-63, which identified critical sectors of the economy and identified government agencies to each of them on sharing information and on strengthening responses to attack.

Critical Infrastructure Information Act of 2002

The U.S. Congress established standards for protecting critical infrastructure information through the Critical Infrastructure Information Act of 2002. In response, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) created the Protected Critical Infrastructure Information (PCII) program to protect private sector infrastructure information voluntarily shared with the government for the purposes of homeland security. The 6 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 29, Procedures for Handling Critical Infrastructure Information; Final Rule, published in 2006, established uniform procedures on the receipt, validation, handling, storage, marking, and use of critical information information voluntarily submitted to DHS. Information submitted by utilities, telecoms and others to the PCII is broadly protected from disclosure. This includes disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act; State, local, tribal, or territorial disclosure laws; regulation or civil litigation.  Only trained and certified U.S. government employees or contractors may use PCII. All users of PCII must have homeland security responsibilities and duties, possess a valid need-to-know, and sign a non-disclosure agreement.  Organizations that can submit proprietary information to the PCII includes privately or publicly owned companies, industry associations and State and local government officials.  Federal government agencies may not submit information to the PCII Program.  Information that is in the public domain cannot be submitted.

Presidential Decision Directive/NSC-63 1998 Critical Infrastructure Protection

Directive NSC-63 identified critical infrastructure whose physical and cyber-based systems were essential to the minimum operations of the economy and government. These included telecommunications, energy, banking and finance, transportation, water systems and emergency services, both governmental and private. Since most infrastructure is privately owned, the protection of critical infrastructure is necessarily a shared responsibility and partnership between owners, operators and the government.  The directive specifically identified interdependence between different utility, telecom and other systems as a growing challenge. Its goal was to create a public-private partnership to enable a closely coordinated effort of both the government and the private sector to avoid increasing government regulation or putting a greater burden on the private sector. To that end it stated that it is preferable that participation by owners and operators in a national infrastructure protection system be voluntary. It also emphasized that privacy rights of consumers and operators of utility, telecom, and other networks must be protected and information handled accurately, confidentially and reliably.

Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7: Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and Protection 2003

Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7 establishes a national policy for Federal departments and agencies to identify and prioritize critical infrastructure and to protect them from terrorist attacks. It directs that federal agencies will collaborate with the private sector to encourage the development of information sharing and analysis mechanisms. Its objective is to identify, prioritize, and coordinate the protection of critical infrastructure and key resources and to facilitate sharing of information about physical and cyber threats, vulnerabilities, incidents, protective measures, and best practices.

President issued Presidential Policy Directive 21 (PPD-21), Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience 2013

This directive establishes national policy on critical infrastructure security and resilience as a shared responsibility among the Federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial governments, and public and private owners and operators of critical infrastructure.  Its objective is to enable information exchange among these organizations by Identifying baseline data and systems requirements for the Federal Government. Federal departments and agencies are directed to ensure that all existing privacy principles, policies, and procedures are implemented consistent with applicable laws and policies.  The Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with other Federal departments and agencies, was directed to convene a team of experts to identify baseline data and systems requirements to enable the efficient exchange of information and intelligence relevant to strengthening the security and resilience of critical infrastructure.

National Infrastructure Protection Plan 2013

The National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) 2013 was mandated by Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7. The latest version of the plan was produced in 2013.  The NIPP's goal is a mechanism for developing coordination between government and the private sector.  As the Nation’s critical infrastructure is largely owned by the private sector, managing risk to enhance security and resilience is a shared priority for industry and government.  The goal is collaborative public-private partnership that operates as a unified national effort, as opposed to a hierarchical, command-and-control structure.  The eighteen sectors identified by DHS as critical infrastructure are: chemical, commercial facilities, communications, critical manufacturing, dams, defense industrial base, emergency services, energy, financial services, food and agriculture, government facilities, healthcare and public health, information, technology, nuclear reactors, materials, and waste, transportation systems, water and wastewater systems.  While it lauds the investment in some critical infrastructure it specifically refers to A National Academy of Sciences report that the Nation’s earlier heavy investment in the design, construction, and operation of critical infrastructure systems—water, wastewater, energy, transportation, and telecommunications—has not been matched with the funds necessary to keep these systems in good condition or to upgrade them to meet the demands of a growing population.

Information about critical infrastructure is vulnerable to unauthorized access that could affect its confidentiality, integrity, or availability. The distribution of such information to those entities that can use it for efficient and effective risk management remains a challenge. It is critical to maintain the availability of information and distribute it to those who can use and protect it properly. This entails being transparent about information-sharing practices; protecting sources and methods; and ensuring privacy and protecting civil liberties, while also enabling law enforcement investigations.  It references the PCII program, authorized by the Critical Infrastructure Information (CII) Act of 2002 and its implementing regulations (Title 6 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 29).

The National Plan identifies certain lifeline functions that are essential to the operation of most critical infrastructure sectors. These lifeline functions include communications, energy, transportation, and water. To manage critical infrastructure risk effectively, it directs that partners must identify the assets, systems, and networks that are essential to their continued operation including interdependencies. Interdependencies may be operational (e.g., power required to operate a water pumping station) or physical (e.g., co-located infrastructure, such as water and electric lines running under a bridge span) and include infrastructure that requires accurate and precise positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) data. PNT services are critical to the operations of multiple critical infrastructure sectors and are vital to incident response.

US 3D elevation project as a model for a national infrastructure map

A number of years ago an initiative was funded under the ARRA economic stimulus package to initiate what was then called LiDAR for the Nation.  This has resulted in a USGS initiative called 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) whose goal over an eight year period is to develop a 3D elevation map with horizontal resolution of a meter and vertical resolution of 10 cm for the entire U.S. and territories.  This entails LiDAR scanning the contiguous continental U.S. and Hawaii and interferometric synthetic radar over Alaska.  It also includes bathymetric data for the U.S. coastline.  To date 48% of the U.S. has been covered or scanning is underway.  An inventory of these projects is available.

At GIS in the Rockies this year Carol Lydic of the USGS gave an overview of this program and the most recent initiatives to broaden the partnerships that are instrumental in creating the national 3D elevation map.  The program is based on partnerships with federal, state, local, and tribal government agencies, academic institutions and the private sector.

In 2012 a study was completed that estimated the economic value to 27 different sectors of accurate 3D data.  The top five included in this study (National Enhanced Elevation Assessment) are

• Flood risk management                                  $295m to  $502m
• Infrastructure and construction management $206m to  $942m
• Natural resources conservation                     $159m to  $335m
• Agriculture and precision farming                  $122m to $2,011m
• Water supply and quality                                  $85m to  $156m

The total economic benefits for all sectors was estimated to be between $1.8B to $13B.   I find this to be a very conservative estimate. 

A number of years ago I remember hearing about an outstanding program by the state of North Carolina in cooperation with federal agencies that involved a statewide LiDAR scan and the creation of a database of all structures with a footprint of over 800 square feet that allowed estimates to be made of the economic impact of any type of flood anywhere in the state or of a rise in sea level along North Carolina's coastline.  This is of inestimable value in assessing any mitigation project.

In the infrastructure and construction sector, one of the largest contributors to the cost of a civil construction project such as a highway or a railway, is the amount of earth that has to be moved which can be derived from a 3D terrain model.  Having a reliable digital terrain model is of great value to any civil project for assessing alternative right of ways during the planning stage and could also be used during the design and construction phases especially if supplemented by information about the soil and geological structure of the subsurface and location of underground utilities.

I found the 3DEP project particularly interesting because it represents a potential model for creating a national infrastructure map including underground infrastructure.  Federal organizations that could be involved include USGS, National Map, US DOT, FERC, and NERC.  Partners might include NARUC (National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners), CGA (Common Ground Alliance), state and municipal DOTs, AGC (Associated General Contractors of America), utility and telecom network operators, general contractors, tribal government agencies, and academic institutions.

Ordnance Survey releases vector basemap optimized for national overview to street level

The Ordnance Survey has just released OS Open Zoomstack for public feedback. OS Open Zoomstack is very impressive because it is a vector basemap optimized for different scales - from a national overview to street level detail. It's available in GeoPackage, PostGIS Export File, and Vector Tiles (based on Mapbox’s open specification) and via a Vector Tile API. And it's open. Furthermore, it's a way to get your toes in the water for the upcoming Open MasterMap.

UK Mastermap to be made freely available

As part of the Prime Minister’s London Tech Week roundtable, the UK Government has announced that key parts of the OS MasterMap will be made openly available for the public and businesses to use. OS MasterMap is the definitive source of highly-detailed geographic data of Great Britain.  The government estimates that this will boost the UK economy by at least £130m each year, as innovative companies and startups use the data.  The release of OS MasterMap data is one of the first projects to be delivered by the new Geospatial Commission which I blogged about recently.

This has been a long journey.  Many have argued for years that opening Mastermap would benefit the UK economy.   A study released in February, 2008 estimated the benefits to the UK economy if spatial data were available at no cost instead of the current relatively high cost as compared to the US, for example.  The study estimated that the gross  benefits to the UK economy would be around £168 million a year while a government subsidy to the OS of something between £12 million and £85 million would be required. Overall this implied a net benefit to the UK economy of between £83 to £156 million.  There are risks associated with making the Ordnance Survey, the semi-commercial organization responsible for Mastermap a purely government agency, witness the USGS in the U.S., but there is no doubt that open data has benefited the U.S. economy and other economies.

UK's Geospatial Commission could play a role in the digital transformation of construction

Governments are consolidating the role of geospatial data and technology in central governments. I have blogged about the Geospatial Data Act of 2017 in the U.S. Studies of the value of spatial data  and technology to several national economies have suggested that wise government policy could significantly increase the contribution of spatial data and technology to the national GDP.  Earlier this year the UK government created a Geospatial Commission which is intended to consolidate ten government departments and agencies including the Ordnance Survey. At Geo Business 2018 in London, William Priest, Director of the Geospatial Commission, gave an overview of the mission of the Geospatial Commission and the role it could play in the digital transformation of construction.

‎ Geospatial data and technology has disrupted things like nothing else. In the hands of Google, Uber, Tesla, Apple, Amazon, Twitter, and others geospatial data and technology have touched just about everyone's lives.  And the UK has been a leader in the application geospatial data and technology.  Among the countries of the world the UK ranks #1 or #2 in geospatial readiness. The Geospatial Commission has been allocated GBP 40 million‎ for year 1 and year 2 to find ways to use geospatial technology to deliver economic growth and improve productivity and drive investment to foster innovation and to protect and enhance the quality of the UK's world class geospatial data assets. If this money is spent money wisely, it could unlock tremendous value in the UK economy, primarily by removing removing barriers, for example, in making the Ordnance Survey's Mastermap more open and accessible.

Of the potential use cases where geospatial data and technology could unlock value - healthcare and social welfare, housing, land and planning, optimizing end-to-end supply chains, infrastructure and construction, forecasting demand for public services, data quality and standards, flood prevention and protection, earth observation, and critical national infrastructure - the one that could have the largest impact on the economy is construction which represents roughly 10 % of GDP.  In a recent report, McKinsey & Company suggests that the construction industry is ripe for disruption and one of the five technologies that it identified as key in the anticipated transformation is geospatial.

General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which enters into effect today covers your location

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) enters into force today.  It is a regulation in EU law on data protection and privacy for all individuals within the European Union and the European Economic Area. It also addresses the export of personal data outside the EU and EEA. The GDPR is quite far ranging. Here are some interesting examples of what it covers. You can take the online test that the BBC prepared (which the material below is derived from) here.  You will notice that location data is included in the personal data covered by the legislation.  Surprising to me is that it covers AI (artificial intelligence) when it is applied to an application.

• GDPR is designed to help people protect and control use of their "personal data". What does that cover?

The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office defines personal data as: "Information relating to an identifiable person who can be directly or indirectly identified in particular by reference to an identifier." It says this includes "name, identification number, location data or online identifier". Under some circumstances, this can extend to images, and details about your family. Unconnected facts - such as the distance from the Earth to the Moon - would not become personal data just on your say-so.

• A free app that relies on adverts to make money has gathered information about you. Under what circumstances can you forbid it to use the data?

Organizations have six lawful bases for processing personal data: Consent, contract, legal obligation, vital interests, public task or legitimate interest. But whatever the legal basis, you always have the right to object to the continued processing of your personal data if it's for the purposes of direct marketing. If you willingly and explicitly consented to your personal data being used for ads in the past, then apps and others can continue to do so.

• An online chat service wants access to your location and email contacts and is relying on user consent as the legal basis for this.

GDPR says consent means individuals must have real choice and control. So, they need to have a "clear and concise" explanation as to what they are agreeing to, and pre-ticked boxes and other forms of default consent no longer apply.

• Over time you have grown to dislike being part of a social network and decide to quit.

GDPR introduces a right for individuals to demand their personal data be erased under some circumstances. These include situations when its use has been based on their consent. Organizations must respond within a month of receiving the request and should comply without charging a fee unless the request is deemed "manifestly unfounded or excessive".

• You are unconscious after a car crash and require surgery. Can your GP provide your personal medical records to the nearest hospital ?

One basis for processing and sharing an individual’s personal data is that it is necessary to protect their vital interests, which includes saving their life. So, sharing data with a hospital's A&E department for an emergency would count.

• A video streaming service emailed you all the personal data it held about you last week, as requested, but you decide to ask again.

GDPR gives individuals a right to access the personal data held on them under some circumstances. Organizations are encouraged to make this possible via the internet, and are supposed to respond within a month. However, if a user subsequently asks to be sent further copies of their data, then the service involved can charge a "reasonable fee" based on its administrative costs.

• You lose your wallet. Inside is a scrap of paper on which you had written down your work login and current password. Your IT department confirms that an unidentified party entered your account, giving them access to a file containing the names and addresses of 12 police informants involved in a project you are working on.

GDPR introduces a duty to report certain types of data breaches within 72 hours of them being detected, even if all the details are not yet known. If individuals are also put at significant risk, they must also be informed. Failure to comply can entail a fine of up to $23.6 million or 4% of the annual global turnover.

• Your application to work at a restaurant is turned down, and you are told it was rejected by the firm's artificial intelligence system.

GDPR gives an individual the right to challenge decisions made solely on the automated analysis of their personal data if they did not consent to it in advance. Those affected can ask for access to the details on which the decision was based. They also have the right to have a human double-check that a mistake was not made.

• You decide to quit membership of a gym chain to join a rival. You ask for your data in a common machine readable format.

GDPR includes the right to obtain and reuse personal data from one service to another. It applies when the lawful basis for processing the information is consent or contract, and the processing is carried out by automated means (ie not paper files). The data must be provided in a commonly used and machine-readable format.