╬ Cory VardamanProject Manager

╬ Joe ClarkAssistant Manager

╬ Lisa AlbaneseGIS Technician, Web

Master

╬ Ethan RobertsGIS Analyst, Graphics Design

Warrant Visualization and Mapping:

Progress Report

Prepared for the New Braunfels Police Department

Background

Using automated GIS tool to map un-served warrants

• Visualization• Data Management• Proactively pursue outstanding warrants• Planning operations• Increase safety

More efficiently and effectively manage outstanding warrants

Scope

Based on needs assessment conducted on February 7th:

• Limited to the local area• Within the Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction• Limited to Class C Misdemeanor warrants

All deliverables by the 4th of May 2012

New Braunfels ETJ

The ETJ is the only area NBPD can serve warrants

Phases

Phase I: Data Preparation/ File Conversion

Phase II: Basic Warrant Tool Development

Phase III: Advanced Tool Construction

Phase IV: Tool Proofing and Refinement

Phase I: Data Collection

Task 1 Data Collection

Completed: Obtain sample .xml data

In Progress: None

To Do: None

Objective: collect samples from the CRIMES warrant database and prepare “scrubbed” warrant files for geocoding.

Phase I: Data Preparation

Task 2: Data Conversion Python script .xml to .csv converter

script tool Batch multiple .xml files Generates a singular comma separate

value (.csv) file containing data of all the warrant information.

Labels the column with the correct attribute header and populates each field.

ArcGIS supports .csv file extension and interprets the data into tabular format.

Batching

Phase I: Data Preparation

Task 3: Testing of Converted Files Template .csv file: warrant_output.csv. Mock Data .csv file: warrant_output2.csv - populated with 16 mock warrant data to

include addresses out of the Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). Six (6) records of which were created with zip codes outside of New Braunsfels ETJ. We did this to test the accuracy of the geocoding tool and to test for filtering of non-

local addresses

Phase II: Basic Warrant Tool Development

Objective: Develop the prototype geocoding tool design.

Task 1 Create composite address

locators

Method 1:

Complete

Built composite address using point and centerline.

Pros- custom tailored to clients' needs. Streamlined for accuracy vs pre-made locators

Cons – runs the risk of being outdated if data files are not updated.

Phase II: Basic Warrant Tool Development

Objective: Develop the prototype geocoding tool design.

Task 1 Create composite address

locators

Method 2:

Complete

Built composite address using City of New Braunfels address locator.

Pros- locators are maintained by the GIS department and resides on the server. Easier to incorporate tool with existing resources on server.

Cons – less accurate in terms of street matching.

Phase II: Basic Warrant Tool Development

Objective: Develop the prototype geocoding tool design.

Task 2: Building of geocoding model

In Progress

Complete

Automation

Filtering of non local warrant data.

Automate the conversion of initial and subsequent updating of warrant data into tool.

In addition to the composite address locators, a model has been built to identify zip codes outside of the New Braunfels' Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) and filter the records of non local warrant data.

Phase II: Basic Warrant Tool Development

Objective: Develop the prototype geocoding tool design.

Task 3: Geocode Test File

Complete Test run model by geocoding 16 mock warrant data records.

100% of the six records with non-local were identified and filtered.

Phase III: Advanced Tool Construction

Pros-Simplicity in visualization Cons – Runs the risks of being

outdated. Requires the layers to be regularly updated.

Objective: enhancement of the geocoding tool to include background base layers, database management and map design and visualization.

Task 1: Implementation of additional map layers

Method 1:

In Progress

Use of individual base background layers.

Phase III: Advanced Tool Construction

Pros-Updated by CoNB. Provides full extent of New Braunfels in various zoom levels. Rich visualization.

Cons – more elaborate design with map layers that may not pertain to the NBPD needs.

Objective: enhancement of the geocoding tool to include background base layers, database management and map design and visualization.

Task 1: Implementation of additional map layers

Method 2:

In Progress

Use of City of New Braunfels tiled map for base background layer.

Phase III: Advanced Tool Construction

Geodatabase Warrant tool will be installed in a

geodatabase format configuable with New Braunfels GIS servers.

replicate the workspace environment as close as we possible to make it configurable to the ArcSDE environment.

Modifications will be configured by IT or GIS personnel to make this tool accessible in ArcSDE environment.

Objective: enhancement of the geocoding tool to include background base layers, database management and map design and visualization.

Task 2: Creation of geodatabase and map document

Complete Design model using file geodatabase

workspace for input (warrant data), scratch (intermediate files), and output (output, final workspace)

Phase III: Advanced Tool ConstructionObjective: enhancement of the geocoding tool to include background base layers, database management and map design and visualization.

Task 4: Reference Map Design

Complete At this time, we have decided to use Manifold as our visualization platform.

Task 3: Model Streamlining

To Do Improve the model to make implementation as smooth as possible and to reduce errors.

Phase III has been revamped to focus more on streamlining the model process.

Phase IVTo Do

•Data Recycling

•Warrant Model Installed/Tested on NBPD Server

•Troubleshooting

•Additional Project Considerations

Phase IVData Recycling

• Begins with external or internal conversion process• New active warrant files must be first correctly sourced• Various methods…

• Available conversion software (Novyxis): extra cost

• Existing script: extra time• Encode system produces acceptable table

formats: external forces• Regular model “feeding” • “Manual automation”

Phase IVWarrant Model Installed/Tested on NBPD Server

• Need for the final output available to entire NBPD• Accessed, updated, and edited through…

• ArcMap• ArcCatalog

• Successful Integration dependent upon…

• Our Warrant File Geodatabase and Your NBPD Server compatibility

• “Hollow” tool

Phase IVTroubleshooting

•Reserved for final model streamlining

• Possible conflicts include…

• NBPD Server and warrant model incompatibility

• Feeding the model and producing inaccurate address

points

• Frequency, intensity, and volume of .xml files and

efficient recycling

• Assessing unforeseen errors

Phase IVAdditional Project Considerations

• Web Mapping Service

• Utilizing NBPD ArcSDE Server

• Integrating warrant geodatabase online

• Creating night/day base maps

• Query operations

Updated Schedule

•Adjustment for the extension of file conversion step• Phase II begun 3 weeks early• Phase III moved up 1 week, cut short 1 week• Phase IV increased by 1 week•Disadvantage• File conversion more difficult• Vital to model efficiency•Advantage• Allowed simultaneous development of several

phases • Better integration of various model “organs”

Updated SchedulePhase I: Data Preparation/Collection

• .XML warrant file extraction, cleaning, conversion C

• CRIMES Dispatch system “batching” C

• Testing of converted files C

• Data collection C

Phase II: Basic Warrant Development Tool

• Address locator referencing (standardized address) C

• Warrant file geocoding C

• Additional refinement C

Phase III: Advanced Tool Construction

• Geocoded warrant file implementation IP

• Creation of file geodatabase and map document C

• Model streamlining TD

• Reference map design IP

Phase IV: Tool Proofing and Refinement

Model enhancement with data recycling

Warrant model installed and tested on NBPD

server

Troubleshooting

Additional project considerations

Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun

27 28 29 1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30 31 1

Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun

30 31 1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22Proposal Presentation

23 24 25 26

27 28 29 1 2 3 4

Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun

26 27 28 29 30 31 1

2 Progress

Report

3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 27 27 28 29

30 

1 2 3 4 5 6

Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun

30 1 2 3 4Final Report

5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31 1 2 3

February

March

April

May

1

2

4

56

7

89

10

11

3

• C= Complete• IP= In Progress• TD= To Do

Questions…

– Point of Contact: Ethan Roberts…………..…ethanroberts@txstate.edu