We are a small Local Govt Authority in Australia with only approx 15,000
properties when we created our GIS and linked our parcels we had an
approx 85% match. We used a tool from ERSIS Australia to match most of
our properties and got to about 95% in about 4 months however the last
5% needed searching at our Land Titles office and was very time
consuming and expensive taking approx 8 months (a person working 3 days
a week).
You will need to run the data both ways eg whatsin the rating/property
system thats not in the GIS and whats in parcels are in the GIS and not
in the rating/property system.
We have approx 8 props in GIS that are not rated yet because basically
there a are problems with the land at our land titles and need intense
investigation.
I know other large councils in Australia have under taken this task and
its taken over 2 years and still going.
Good luck but be aware its a time consuming process.
cheers
Steve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Haynes [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, 24 February 2000 7:29
> To: Dupler, Phillip
> Cc: Mapinfo-l
> Subject: Re: MI Parcel/Assessor data matching
>
> You've touched on a few, but these are probably the result of "honest"
> mistakes. Almost all the attempts in SC have been put on hold because
> the
> last thing in the world the Bubbas in Power want is to have the
> manipulation
> of the boundaries displayed in graphic format. The dedicated mappers
> in two
> counties lost their jobs when they tried to pursue the project.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dupler, Phillip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 1:30 PM
> Subject: MI Parcel/Assessor data matching
>
>
> >We in Fort Worth, Texas recently had our GIS parcel file created from
> CAD
> >based tax maps and linked to the assessor's tax records. The results
> were
> >disappointing in that the links between features and attribute
> records fell
> >far short of 100%. Now we are looking at undertaking an effort
> in-house to
> >correct the problems. I need to make a list.
> >
> >My question is this: What problems have other cities encountered in
> their
> >efforts to link parcel features and assessor property records? I have
> noted
> >a few we're anticipating below. Any others to look out for?
> >
> >1. Missing parcel polygons in the coverage.
> >2. Non-standardized legal descriptions in the database.
> >3. Non-standardized addresses in the database.
> >4. Missing records in the database (particularly government-owned
> >properties).
> >5. Property subdivided but never platted.
> >6. Property assembled but never re-platted.
> >7. Address of assessor's record is not the address assigned to the
> lot.
> >8. Streets vacated to adjacent owners but property never re-platted.
> >9. Highways cut through neighborhoods but never re-platted.
> >10. Roads widened but adjacent parcels never re-platted or assessor's
> >records updated.
> >11. Tax-exempt parcels/records historically ignored by the assessor
> are
> >out-of-date.
> >
> >If anyone has time or cares to expound on unique solutions to any of
> the
> >above, that would be nice, but I don't want anyone to feel like I'm
> asking
> >for a free GIS implementation plan. Just need a heads-up on potential
> >roadblocks I may not have foreseen. Thanks all.
> >
> >Phil Dupler
> >Senior Planner
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> >To unsubscribe from this list, send e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
> put
> >"unsubscribe MAPINFO-L" in the message body, or contact
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list, send e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
> put
> "unsubscribe MAPINFO-L" in the message body, or contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, send e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put
"unsubscribe MAPINFO-L" in the message body, or contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
