| 1 Introduction |
Actions |
| Preamble: The original LCS88 consortium was of the few. The intention here is to get as many users on board as possible. To this end we want a mechanism that will enable the use of jigsaw funding. This will require a leap of faith to part 4, the Management Specification, where we hope to develop an approach and then put in for funding. |
|
| 2 Points On The Agenda |
|
The first point made was that the initial role of the SG was to determine the technical specifications for the aerial photography, with reference to costings and issues of consortium membership:
- The spec for the new LCS is of value to a range of other organizations that have a different range of use of applications. Without AP none of the other things happen.
- The AP was seen to be important in its own right. The map would come later, and the change map after that.
- It was suggested that the name of the group be changed to incorporate AP and LCS.
- There was a view that there would be more interest in AP and concomitant better funding opportunities. Some examples of this emerged from around the table: Agricultural interest, New Scottish Parliament, Scottish Office, Forestry Commission.
|
|
| There were views expressed around some of the issues of change detection and the kinds of change that might be represented (change in cover or area estimates. The point was made in response to this that having high resolution data source means that land use changes and the survey artifacts can be discriminated. One of the views expressed was that "Change" ought to be in the title. |
|
| Summary Point: The initial role of the SG is to determine the technical and managerial specifications for the acquisition of a national AP coverage. |
Rename the Project (consortium and SG) to include, "AP" and "Scotland":
Creating A New Air Photo Database for Scotland. |
| 3 Technical Specifications |
|
| The crux here was that along with the issues of a snapshot versus a rolling programme, there are also the inter-related factors of time, scale and costs. |
|
| Rolling versus snapshot: A concern that a rolling programme would go to the most popular areas (for AP) the more often was voiced. However another view was that the ecological need in some areas was only for a 20-year re-visit interval. The SO Ag. Dept. would want an annual system, as they are only able to review only 5% of the agricultural stocks per year now. |
|
| The prevailing views were that one of the objectives of this project was to be a "broad church" of AP use, and that the SG should not try to second-guess user opinion. If the views around the table were not a reflection of those of the wider AP/LCS users, then they should be polled. |
Lex Comber to devise and conduct a user survey. |
The times to acquire the AP are determined by the scales required, although images can be re-sampled to higher or lower resolutions. Rough estimates for Scotland are:
- 1:10,000 would take 2-3 years to do.
- 1:20,000 in 1 year.
- For OP, the Cambridge project was at 1:10,000 and the OR was stated to have taken 4 years.
- (nb. Since the meeting The GeoInformation Group have said that it took in nine months.)
Seasonal differences were not seen to be important for LCS, although the point was made that for some applications using AP, such as archaeology, there is a need to fly at times unsuitable for vegetation mapping. |
|
| It was agreed that the questionnaire would ask for information on the level of (ground) features that users want to pick up, rather than their preferred resolution. |
All members of the SG to identify potential users or survey respondents and to inform Lex Comber. |
Some relevant points made around this issue were:
- 1:25,000 gives a resolution of 1m.
- 1:10,000 of 0.25 metres, but involves 6 times more AP and associated costs.
- If the specification was for 1:10,000 to 1:12,000 for the urban areas and a t 1:18,000 to 1:24,000 for the rural, then this would give good sell-on potential for the flying contractors.
- Change in scales across the coverage could create increased statistical problems.
|
|
| Summary Points: We should agree to set up a user survey and try to bring in a wider range of potential users. NRCS agreed to supply sample imagery at different scales to those canvassed along with the survey. The SG and the users have to agree the level of detail to determine the scale bearing in mind the resell opportunities for the contractor, the time to fly and process and the costs. |
Dick Birnie (MLURI), Diana Murray (RCAHMS), Lindsay Simmons (Aerofilms Ltd) and Helen Stannard (NRSC Ltd) are to draw up initial technical specifications as part of the Business Plan. |
| 4 Managerial Specifications |
|
| The main issues identified were those of copyright, the need for phased costings and consortium membership approaches, and the requirement for a solid business case before approaching the higher management levels in the SO. |
|
| RCAHMS stated their belief that if the AP is commissioned then it should be crown copyright and held in the national archive. The differentiation between the ownership of copyright and the conditions of use was emphasized, so that consortium members would bid for the use of AP (e.g. MLURI would bid for the LCS survey). However it was pointed out that MLURI (and others) have a range of uses for the AP that would be difficult to accommodate within a simple costing framework. |
|
| This indicates an approach with phased or tiered consortium membership where, for example, Phase I members might get AP, Phase II digitized AP and OP products. The need for OP needs to be established and might be included as part of the questionnaire. |
User Survey (Lex Comber) to identify OP use. |
| The phased approach suggested for financing the project was to acquire the AP, and then digitize it as the revenues from the consortium members come in. The returns could also provide a third AP/LCS survey by building up a sinking fund for the next project via a revenue stream. |
|
| The view that this has to go up the management line in the SO was expressed. Others felt that it would be difficult to go to the SO hierarchy without firm proposals and to do so would risk disenfranchising bodies such as the SO. |
|
Comments on the issues above:
- Preferential rates for different users – those who put in early get things cheaper.
- There is a lag between acquisition and digitization – some users will want the hard copy.
- Rough costings:
- 1:20,000 AP for £600k,
- Scanning for £500k (1200 dpi true scanning)
- OP about £3 million
- There might be a need for an element of pump priming from the SO to get an ongoing AP/LCS.
- Concerns were expressed about the consortium fragmenting after Phase I.
|
|
| OS stated that they might buy into the consortium, depending on the specifications. |
|
| Summary Points: There is a need to present a business case where members of the consortium are conferred with rights to copyright and a method of capturing a revenue stream is laid out. The notions of a phased approach and tiers of consortium membership were accepted. A rough estimate of the costs involved was given. The user survey will decide the hanging issues (AP details and OP desire) and the end result will be a paper with reference to funding. |
Dick Birnie, Diana Murray, Lindsay Simmons and Helen Stannard are to draw up initial costings and the terms and conditions for the consortium business plan. |
| 5 Other Funding |
|
| There may well be options for other sources of funding, especially European, millennium and lottery funding. It was agreed that different levels of European funding (SNH, LA’s SO) would be looked at and options via SNH and COSLA be examined. |
Derek Nicol, Ed Mackey, Stuart Gardner and Ian Pearmain are to investigate potential European Community monies for this project. |
| Aerofilms/NRSC stated their intention to fly the country this year, although they would prefer to do it in partnership and they expressed their reservations about time-scales. If the SG does not commission they will go ahead anyway and the costs will be higher. The view that the "do nothing" option be considered was expressed. |
|
| Aerofilms/NRSC could provide a costings matrix of user numbers and costs for the different products, as well as examine ideas for creative funding of the project. |
|
| It was agreed to advertise in trade publications and to contact Scottish Enterprise for potential consortium members. |
|
| A strong suggested was for some-one or some organization to control to direct the commercial operation. |
|
| 6 Date of Next Meeting |
|
| The date for the next steering group meeting is 8 March 1999 at Pentland House, Edinburgh. |
|
New Landcover of Scotland
The James Hutton Institute
This page has been mothballed.