[Geomoose-users] GeoMoose organization

Wed Mar 2 19:52:23 EST 2011

Christopher, 

Just looking at your docs now, I concur with Brent's findings below. 

In order to suck you in a little more, I'm going to reply on the buffering topic in a somewhat more subdued level.  We have had this capability in our GeoMoose install almost from day one.  It was a custom add on by us and never got into later versions of GeoMoose (embarrassingly, we're still using version 0.9xxx).  My point though is that this is entirely possible to get working.  We have a address lookup and buffering tool for mailing labels for example. 

Also, point #15 in the geoParcels doc, is more dependant on the server and it's configuration than GeoMoose itself. 

bobb 

>>> Brent Fraser <bfraser at geoanalytic.com> wrote:

Christopher,

  All of the requirements described in your documents fit within the scope of GeoMOOSE.  Some would require no changes to the Javascript or PHP; others (like buffering results handling) would require extensive coding (and that's ok with us!).

  To minimize your maintenance effort in the future, I would highly recommend you plan on contributing your enhancements back into the GeoMOOSE code base.  As Brian Fischer detailed in a previous reply, we are just beginning to work out a good process to move an enhancement from concept to committed (and maintained) code, but mature projects like Mapserver have a good example of a process that works well.

  Would you consider doing an RFC for one of the concepts in your documents to help us develop our process?

Best Regards,          
Brent Fraser 

On 3/1/2011 5:04 PM, Kroot, Christopher wrote: 

Hello Bob and Dean 

We have decided to move forward with GeoMoose.  I have attached 4 documents we discussed via email, one is a spreadsheet listing the overall functionality required ( This is still a work in progress).  The three ms word documents are requirements for 3 of the projects we are working on. We expect to begin our work within the next week.  The tool that I have not been able to find is for drawing a buffer, or creating a buffer automatically and then having a selected set of the features that are within or intersect the buffer written to a table/array for use in display and reporting, and to be able to do multiple selections adding to the previously selected set. 

Is it possible to get the GeoMoose implementation code and associated documentation that is being used in Clatsop county Oregon?  Do you think this is the best implementation to start from? This is the base we would like to start from.  It is one of the best web apps we have found. 

We are excited to learn more about the GeoMoose product and are grateful for all the work you and others have done to date.  I hope that we are able to contribute to the effort in a meaningful way. 

Have a good day 

Christopher Kroot
Enterprise GIS Analyst
Maine Office of GIS
SHS 174
264 Civic Center Drive
Augusta ME 04333-0174
christopher.kroot at maine.gov
207-592-0162 

From: Bob Basques [mailto:Bob.Basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us]
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 2:00 PM
To: DEAN ANDERSON; geomoose-users at lists.sourceforge.net; Kroot, Christopher
Subject: Re: [Geomoose-users] GeoMoose organization

Dean, 

Oh, you meant "the" wiki.  I haven't put much time into it either myself. 

I see the community portal link from the main page any everything.   Good seeing this kind of thing posted to the working site too. 

Qusetion, is there a way to mark which are completed and which are still open for enhancements that a re listed?   Does this make more sense to add into TRAC in the future. 

bobb 

>>> "DEAN ANDERSON" <ANDERSON.DEAN at co.polk.or.us> ( mailto:ANDERSON.DEAN at co.polk.or.us ) wrote:

Bob

After the WIKI was setup  we put our project stuff on the GeoMoose Wiki Community Portal.  We elected not to separate ourselves from the GeoMoose site and have a  separate effort and/or site as we want our efforts to mesh with the rest of the GeoMoose users as much as possible. 

http://www.geomoose.org/wiki/index.php/Oregon_County_Consortium

The WIKI contains that last two projects and outlines planned projects for this spring/summer.  We use the WIKI to collect input, document requirements, and help prioritize projects. This information is then used to work with Houston to develop a project spec.  As part of the last project spec  Houston will post enhancements, etc.. on the WIKI so our members have an easy way to download enhancements and others can see them. My hope is that other groups will take advantage of the community portal and put their project info there.

Our group is pretty loose and informal.  We get together about every 6+ weeks to...

1. Review web sites and interfaces and help each other to support our common Oregon customers (the public).
2. Share results from existing projects.
3. Share tips and tricks.
4. Identify and prioritize projects for future development.
5. Get web based training when we need it.
6. Share funds in getting projects done.

We will have a couple of more members go live in the coming month or so.  My hope is that they will post a link to their site on the gallery page.  Also, now that we can post documents to the WIKI we will put some of our historical information there so I don't have to e-mail it out. It is a cool process. I wish I had more time to spend on it but as an IT guy I have other commitments.

I will be submitting a paper to FOSS4G to describe our implementation process including use cases.  We will also have a session to discuss this at the GIS-In-Action conference in Portland Oregon next month. 

Dean

>>> "Bob Basques"  02/25/11 9:14 AM >>>

Dean, 

I think having a permanent or semi-permanent support structure in place will only help and improve the implementors experience which should translate to a better end user experience.   This has been an identified need for quite a while within the group here.  No lack of support for setting up a more formalized support structure, it's just been more fun to develop.   The trick is putting it together in a way that doesn't impede the development process, while still providing the resources needed for the process.  I think a sheperding approach would be the least invasive to the process.  It can also accommodate representatives from different interested parties to decide priorities as well  future capabilities and options for improvements. 

Your idea of a test project is a very good one.   This could be used to shake out the bugs, so to speak, related to getting a group of interested folks together and defining how support structure might be set up to greatest effect.  This would be a very good presentational piece for Denver as well, even if the project couldn't be completed before then.  Just relating the process I think would be of interest to others in the community. 

Do you have a direct link to the consortium website? 

bobb 

>>> "DEAN ANDERSON" <ANDERSON.DEAN at co.polk.or.us> ( mailto:ANDERSON.DEAN at co.polk.or.us ) wrote:

Bob

It appears you are going to be at FOSSG,  perhaps that would be a good place to talk about this some evening.  The Oregon Consortium would like to help in this process along and we do have a limited amount of funds to contribute. We  identified some of the same issues as a priority for us at our last Oregon consortium meeting.  If folks would like to do this sooner perhaps we could arrange something.    Perhaps we could do a  project this summer and then review the results as a group this September. Our project lists are documented on the Wiki in the community pages section.

We have made great progress to date in Oregon with GeoMoose to date and would like to see the program continue to mature.

Dean Anderson
IT Director
Polk County

>>> "Bob Basques"  02/25/11 8:04 AM >>>

Christopher, 

There are a few commercial and non-profit vendors available now that have done quite a bit of work in the setup, development and research related to GeoMoose and it's continued development, and this type of support has progressed the project very nicely to date.  Having said that I'm also aware of the need to setup some dedicated support functions along the lines of bug fixes, continued development and research into additional capabilities as well as integration with other Opensource as well as proprietary GIS services and systems.  These GeoMoose savvy groups also have some additional ideas and capabilities already in the hopper related to improvements.   They are also very interested in hearing from people and groups such as yourself with respect to desired capabilities of the package.   I would be interested in your specification (or capabilities) wish list for example, regardless, purely for planning purposes. 

My thoughts in recent months have been in setting up some sort of shepherding arrangement with the core developer group, that can handle a supporting roll in the GeoMoose development process.   Such entities already exist, either as commercial and/or non-profits, and are interested in this type of work arrangement.  To date there hasn't been a single large enough project or group of smaller projects with similar enough interests to successfully sponsor the type of support structure you are describing. 

I'm prepared to attempt the arrangement of such a framework with the core development group once a seeding sponsor or sponsors (such as yourself) have been identified as being interested in pursuing such an arrangement. 

Please pass on your desired needs list and if you are interested in discussing further, we can keep this thread going or go offline as well. 

Thanks 

bobb 

Bob Basques 
GIS Systems Developer 
City of Saint Paul, MN. 
612.598.9210 

http://gis.ci.stpaul.mn.us 

>>> "Kroot, Christopher" <Christopher.Kroot at maine.gov> ( mailto:Christopher.Kroot at maine.gov ) wrote:

Hello all 
My name is Christopher Kroot and I am the enterprise GIS analyst for the State of Maine Office of GIS. We are currently using mapserver to create WMS for imagery.  We have developed a simple front end application built with java script and php with mapserver as the backend.  We have determine that others have progressed much further down this road then we have and are looking at selecting a code base for our current and future development. 
We are considering using GeoMoose as the code base for our enterprise web mapping applications that have a mapserver backend.  Currently we have 5 stakeholder groups who have provided us with the functionally requirements for their web mapping needs.  My review of the Clatsop County Web Maps http://maps.co.clatsop.or.us/applications/index.html#  is promising, as it contains most of the base functionality required.  We will be investing a significant amount of resource in the coming years into the environment we choose and want to select the best one to start with. 
What is the organizational structure for GeoMoose?  Are their funded positions for maintenance and future development?   
We are using the ESRI ArcServer environment for web mapping that requires complex spatial analysis, geoprocessing, other more complex functional requirements. 
Thank you for your assistance and have a good day 
Christopher Kroot
Enterprise GIS Analyst
Maine Office of GIS
SHS 174
264 Civic Center Drive
Augusta ME 04333-0174
christopher.kroot at maine.gov
207-592-0162 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------      
Free Software Download: Index, Search & Analyze Logs and other IT data in     
Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data   
generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual
or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business 
insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev 

_______________________________________________
Geomoose-users mailing list
Geomoose-users at lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geomoose-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geomoose-users/attachments/20110302/26184ffd/attachment.html