Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[gismonyc] Queens Map & Data Issue

Expand Messages
  • jaconet@aol.com
    Ken, when you say our GIS do you mean COGIS (the block/lot represetnation by DCP) ? If so, COGIS is several years behind real time changes in lot mergers and
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 29, 2004
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Ken, when you say "our GIS" do you mean COGIS (the block/lot represetnation by DCP) ? If so, COGIS is several years behind real time changes in lot mergers and consolidations that are processed by DOF. DCP upates DOF's changes only after a few years. We all await an on line computerized property map.

      Jack Eichenbaum

      --------------------------------------------------------------
      Subj:
      Date: 6/23/2004 5:08:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time
      From: "kjreid" <kjreid@...>
      To: gismonyc@yahoogroups.com
      Reply-To: gismonyc@yahoogroups.com
      Sent from the Internet (Details)




      I'm posting this for one of our archaelogists. Please follow up if
      you have any ideas. None of the data sources that I could find show
      any data for Lot 70, and we're a little concerned.

      "I wanted to bring an issue I had to the attention of GISMO users.
      I needed to determine the lot configuration of Block 8300 Lot 70, and
      Lot 79 in Douglaston in Queens. According to our GIS they are
      separate lots. According to community members and Sanborn 2003, Lot
      70 was subsumed into Lot 79. The Department of Finance Survey
      Department in Queens confirmed that the community members and Sanborn
      2003 are correct. I hope that this is an isolated incident, but
      wonder why the Sanborn 2003 would be more accurate in this instance
      than the city system. Has anyone else had a similar issue? "

      Thanks in advance,

      Ken Reid
      Landmarks Preservation Commission
    • Ken Reid
      Jack- That s exactly what I was referring to. I was using data from the latest PLUTO database from DCP. The problem was that there was no data at all for the
      Message 2 of 3 , Jul 1, 2004
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Jack-

        That's exactly what I was referring to. I was using data from
        the latest PLUTO database from DCP.

        The problem was that there was no data at all for the lot
        that might be a burial ground. Almost all the fields were
        blank except for some locational data.

        Ken


        ---- Original message ----
        >Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:33:06 -0400
        >From: jaconet@...
        >Subject: [gismonyc] Queens Map & Data Issue
        >To: gismonyc@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >Ken, when you say "our GIS" do you mean COGIS (the block/lot
        represetnation by DCP) ? If so, COGIS is several years behind
        real time changes in lot mergers and consolidations that are
        processed by DOF. DCP upates DOF's changes only after a few
        years. We all await an on line computerized property map.
        >
        >Jack Eichenbaum
        >
        >-------------------------------------------------------------
        -
        > Subj:
        > Date: 6/23/2004 5:08:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time
        > From: "kjreid" <kjreid@...>
        > To: gismonyc@yahoogroups.com
        > Reply-To: gismonyc@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent from the Internet (Details)
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >I'm posting this for one of our archaelogists. Please follow
        up if
        >you have any ideas. None of the data sources that I could
        find show
        >any data for Lot 70, and we're a little concerned.
        >
        >"I wanted to bring an issue I had to the attention of GISMO
        users.
        >I needed to determine the lot configuration of Block 8300
        Lot 70, and
        >Lot 79 in Douglaston in Queens. According to our GIS they
        are
        >separate lots. According to community members and Sanborn
        2003, Lot
        >70 was subsumed into Lot 79. The Department of Finance
        Survey
        >Department in Queens confirmed that the community members
        and Sanborn
        >2003 are correct. I hope that this is an isolated incident,
        but
        >wonder why the Sanborn 2003 would be more accurate in this
        instance
        >than the city system. Has anyone else had a similar
        issue? "
        >
        >Thanks in advance,
        >
        >Ken Reid
        >Landmarks Preservation Commission
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------
        ------~-->
        >Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
        >http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/GFYolB/TM
        >-------------------------------------------------------------
        -------~->
        >
        >
        >Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.