{"id":858,"date":"2018-09-12T21:30:03","date_gmt":"2018-09-13T04:30:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cgia.org\/cagiscouncil\/?p=858"},"modified":"2018-09-12T21:30:03","modified_gmt":"2018-09-13T04:30:03","slug":"national-geodetic-survey-updates-for-state-plane-coordinate-systems","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cgia.org\/cagiscouncil\/2018\/09\/12\/national-geodetic-survey-updates-for-state-plane-coordinate-systems\/","title":{"rendered":"National Geodetic Survey: Updates for State Plane Coordinate Systems"},"content":{"rendered":"

A note from Scott Martin, California Geodetic Coordinator, Geodetic\u00a0 Controls & GPS Surveys, Office of Land Survey, California Department of Transportation.<\/p>\n

Because the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) will be rolling out a new geometric reference frame to replace NAD83 in 2022, it will require a new version of the State Plan Coordinate System in the 48 states that use a codified version thereof. NGS published a Federal Register Notice in April and solicited comments through August on their draft policy and procedure documents for the SPC2022 project. The FRN and draft documents can be accessed here:<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
https:\/\/www.federalregister.gov\/documents\/2018\/04\/18\/2018-08141\/policy-and-procedures-documents-for-the-state-plane-coordinate-system-of-2022<\/a><\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
https:\/\/geodesy.noaa.gov\/INFO\/Policy\/files\/DRAFT_SPCS2022_Policy.pdf<\/a><\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
https:\/\/geodesy.noaa.gov\/INFO\/Policy\/files\/DRAFT_SPCS2022_Procedures.pdf<\/a><\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
As you will see on page 3 of 15 of the Procedures document, State GIS or other professional geospatial organizations will be one of the NGS recognized stakeholder categories which will be allowed to voice preferences for what a state will adopt for their SPC2022 system. I presume that would be the Council, at least, in California.<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
Although the Council may not have a strong position or preference for the \u201csurvey grade\u201d zones we adopt, similar to the six we have in the California Coordinate System of 1983, I suspect that they might be quite interested in the concept of having a statewide SPC zone under the \u201clayered zone\u201d option being offered by the NGS. My discussions with NGS have indicated that an oblique Mercator projection would be best suited for a statewide zone.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A note from Scott Martin, California Geodetic Coordinator, Geodetic\u00a0 Controls & GPS Surveys, Office of Land Survey, California Department of Transportation. Because the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) will be rolling out a new geometric reference frame to replace NAD83 in…
Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":154,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-858","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-announcements"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cgia.org\/cagiscouncil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/858","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cgia.org\/cagiscouncil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cgia.org\/cagiscouncil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cgia.org\/cagiscouncil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/154"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cgia.org\/cagiscouncil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=858"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cgia.org\/cagiscouncil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/858\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":859,"href":"https:\/\/cgia.org\/cagiscouncil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/858\/revisions\/859"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cgia.org\/cagiscouncil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=858"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cgia.org\/cagiscouncil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=858"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cgia.org\/cagiscouncil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=858"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}