A Local-State Government Spatial Data Sharing Partnership

Chapter 5 – Results of Partnership Case Studies at State Government Level
knowledge base and variations due to geographical location and size. This data enabled
the planning and estimation for the costing of the proposed work plan associated with the
project. Importantly, it also identified the usage of the cadastral mapbase by local
governments. At the start of the project one third of the local governments were not using
any digital cadastral mapbase and only four were utilising the mapbase maintained by the
state government. However, by the end of 2000 this had changed dramatically with 71
LGAs using this data and only eight LGAs not using any digital mapbase (See Figure 5.3).
The category of “Non-maintained Use” refers to LGAs that have made a one off purchase
of the mapbase and do little or no ongoing maintenance, whilst the “Maintained by Others”
category refers to the mapbase being maintained by authorities such as Melbourne Water.
The proposed work program included activities such as capacity building (hardware,
software and training) and reconciliation of both organisation’s property and parcel
databases.
7 0
6 0
5 0
4 0
3 0
2 0
1 0
0
N o t U s in g
V ic m a p
P ro p e rty
N o n -
m a in ta in e d
U s e
123
M a in ta in e d
b y O th e rs
M a in ta in e d
b y L a n d
V ic to ria
Note: Blue=Start of PIP 1996, Red =PIP in 2000
Figure 5.3 Increased use of the DSE mapbase by LGAs ( Jacoby et al 2002)
Format of Partnership Agreements
The partnerships were formalised through a licence agreement that was executed between
each LGA and State Government, and included an agreed program of works. The
agreement, as much as possible, was a standard licence contract which identified the
objective of the project, responsibilities of each party, term of the agreement, data
ownership, intellectual property and use of data.
In 2003, with the growing recognition of the importance of address data, a new address
standard, the Rural and Urban Addressing Standard AS/NZS 4819, was developed to
provide a comprehensive standard for address information for both urban and rural areas.
However, the new standard also created some additional complexities with respect to its
implementation and adoption. In the case of local government, many of their existing
property systems had to be amended to utilise the new standard. It was the responsibility
of the software vendors to update their software to the new standard, however there was