Title:  Producing Multiple Scale Map Products from a Single Master Database

Abstract:

AAA provides over 40 million members with a wide variety of map products ranging in scale from downtown views to regional atlases.  AAA is currently developing a master database along with tools for maintenance and product extraction utilizing ArcInfo software.  The new system is expected to improve consistency across products, reduce maintenance costs, and offer flexibility to expand AAA's product line.  Part of the novelty of AAA��s approach is the concept that a single master database will support the production of maps at multiple scales.  AAA has successfully published city and state level map products utilizing this approach.  This paper describes the concept of multiple scale map production and the ongoing development effort, emphasizing lessons learned and some of the solutions AAA has developed.
 

Introduction

The concept of producing multiple scale maps from a single master database has emerged as an alternative to the more traditional approach to digital map making which AAA has employed in the past.  The traditional approach utilizes a separate set of data for each map product in the production cycle (see figure 1).  The maps are digitized at different scales, and carry little attribute information, other than information required for symbology.

Figure 1.  Traditional Approach .  Maps are maintained independent of each other.  Updates in one map are not seen by other maps.

The principal disadvantage of the traditional approach is maintenance.  A single road may appear in a very large number of map products.  Depending on the type of edit required, the road must be edited separately in every map product in which the road appears.  This produces a logistical problem, in that each map has its own production cycle, and edits are generally made as a map product comes up in the production cycle.  Information on required edits must be logged, maintained, and coordinated among the various map products affected.  At any given point in time, the various map databases may be inconsistent in terms of currency of data they carry.

Given the problems of maintenance and consistency across map products, AAA envisioned a new approach which would keep all current data in a Master database, from which all the various map products could draw information (figure 2).  This gave rise to the concept of maps as different views into the same data.

Figure 2.  Master Database and Multiple Scale Map Products.  Data is maintained at the Master Database level.  All maps draw on data from the same Master DB.

Under the new approach, every attempt is made to use data from the spatial library layers directly wherever possible.  Spatial and attribute edits to the data are map-independent and are done at the Master Database level (figure 3).  These master database layers are filtered through visibility tables and MAPPROJECTION but are essentially unmodified as they make their way to the final map product.  Visibility tables control what features appear on a map, and MAPPROJECTION does on-the-fly projection of the layers to the map product projection.  The minimum set of information that must be carried as local coverages includes features that must be displaced for cartographic reasons, and all annotation.  The expected advantage of this approach is that all attribute and topological edits are done to the master database and are thus available for other map products to use.  The result will be increased consistency across map products and reduced maintenance costs.  The disadvantages are increased software and data complexity, and slower performance due to the on-the-fly projection.

Figure 3.  Multi-Scale products from a Single Master Database

 

Advantages of a Single Master Database for Map Production

Immediate benefits for map production: Additional benefits beyond mapping:

Components of the Map Production System

Seamless National Spatial Database

The Master database is stored in a Spatial database system, such as Librarian, ArcStorm, or SDE.   ArcStorm offers the advantage of feature-based locking for managing edit transactions in a multi-user environment.  SDE offers advantages of speed and the ability to handle very large datasets.

The spatial data is stored in a common projection suitable for a nationwide database.

Business rules

An essential part of creating an automated system is a clear definition of the business rules that govern map standards, content and appearance.   This includes identification of all the different map types, map sizes, and border styles, analysis of what kinds of features appear on what types of maps, and how those features should be symbolized.

Extraction rules and visibility tables

Extraction rules are automated expressions of the business rules which dictate what kinds of features appear on what kinds of maps. Once the extraction rules have been defined as business logic and coded into the system, any kind of map can be created with minimum user intervention.

The extraction rules automatically create visibility tables based on map type and map scale.  Together, extraction rules and visibility tables determine what features appear on any particular map product.  Visibility tables are files containing pointers to specific features in the master database.  Our convention for visibility tables is one visibility table for every layer in a map view. Visibility tables are used to create selection sets, and selection sets define what features appear on a map.

The extraction rules do a standardized job of setting up the visibility tables, but the operator has an opportunity to fine tune the visibility tables by adding or removing features as required for a map product.

This is both  the simplest and most effective technique in the master database concept.  By using visibility tables, we are effectively able to apply a filter to our database, allowing only the features that we want to appear on a map.

Map View projections and the MAPPROJECTION command

Our business rules state that every map view (or inset) in a map product may have its own projection.  The master database is stored in a projection suitable for a nationwide dataset.  This means that the data must somehow be projected from the master projection into a map-specific projection.  The traditional way to do this would be to create a local coverage and convert it directly into the desired projection.  However, since we want to rely on the master database as much as possible, we are using the MAPPROJECTION command instead.  MAPPROJECTION allows you to specify the desired output projection (in this case the map-specific projection) and utilize data which is stored in a different projection.  This projection transformation is done on-the-fly, without altering the original data.

The only disadvantage to using the MAPPROJECTION command is that there is a time penalty for doing the on-the-fly projection.  The time penalty is sometimes negligible, sometimes significant, depending on the size and scale of the map.  So far, the performance has been tolerable, but of all the processing required for this multiple map product concept, the MAPPROJECTION command is the most time consuming.  However, in order to gain the advantage of maintaining one single master database, the extra processing time is acceptable.

A Minimum Set of Local, Map-Specific Coverages

There are cases where, for cartographic reasons, features from the master database need to be manipulated to enhance their appearance on a particular map product.  Examples where this may be necessary include: At present, these features are maintained in small, product-specific coverages.  It is possible that this map-specific information may be beneficial to other maps of a similar type scale.  We are investigating ways of maintaining this information within the master database as well, with tags to identify the map type and scale for which the features are appropriate.

Text Placement

Text placement is critical on a published map product.  Some Internet mapping applications use automated routines that do a reasonable, but not very precise job of labeling streets and other features.  The public has so far been fairly tolerant of text placement on Internet maps.  However, labeling must be done in a muich more aesthetically pleasing manner for a printed map product.

Text placement is one of the lengthiest stages of production, particularly on a city map where every street has to be annotated.  Text is also the single largest set of data that we currently carry outside of the master database.  As it stands today, text is one of the last remaining exceptions to our concept of deriving multiple scale map products from a single database.

We use automatic text generation routines followed by a process of manually fine-tuning the text placement to produce a satisfactory map product.  We are hopeful that products such as Esri's Maplex will be able to provide high accuracy for automatic text generation.  However, text placement and repositioning of automatically generated text continues to require manual operator intervention.

When high-quality automatic text placement is a reality, a very manual and labor intensive part of our production process will go away, and we will be much closer to the concept of fully automated, data-driven map production.
 

Geographic Storage:

ArcStorm and SDE

The solutions for spatial data storage were ArcStorm and SDE.  ArcStorm offers feature locking, which enables you to have a number of people editing the same database without fear of overwriting or conflicts.   SDE on the other hand is intended for very large data sets and fast spatial queries.  Ideally, we would like to have a spatial database that is good for very large datasets, offers feature locking, and supports fast spatial and attribute queries, and fast display speed.

Feature locking is an absolute requirement, particularly in the early phase of this project when edits to the database will be more frequent.  However, as the size of our database grows, we expect to move our data into SDE.  ArcStorm is not intended for large datasets.  In the early phases of our project, ArcStorm seemed like the right solution, but as the size of our database grows, and interest in our database grows within the organization, the display and query speed of SDE is becoming increasingly important.  Although it does not offer feature locking, SDE does have spatial locking, and we believe that this will be sufficient to meet our needs.  The other advantages of SDE, particularly its ability to handle very large datasets, are compelling reasons to move towards this technology.   Obviously, if a future release of SDE supports feature locking this would be the best of both worlds.
 

Data Storage Issues

Esri��s ArcStorm was chosen to manage data for the map production system for the following reasons: In spite of the above mentioned reasons, using ArcStorm has not been without its challenges.  Following are some of the issues that have prompted a reconsideration of the choice to use ArcStorm: Is migrating to SDE the solution?  This question is seriously being considered for the map production system.  The database design that is being used for the ArcStorm implementation is being altered to be amenable to an SDE database design in the future.

Conclusion

The concept of creating multiple scale map products from a single database is viable.  The system has successfully generated maps in different scale ranges from the same master database.  The maps produced by the system have been published and are available for distribution to members.  We have faced a number of challenges along the way, but so far we have been able to overcome these challenges and proceed with the system as planned.
  

Miguel Garriga
mgarriga@national.aaa.com
Senior GIS Analyst, GIS/Publishing Development & Support
AAA

Hari Koduru
hkoduru@national.aaa.com
GIS Analyst, GIS/Publishing Development & Support
AAA

1000 AAA Drive
Heathrow, FL 32746